Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 132

Thread: if Trump is elected president ?

  1. #81
    Freedom Fighter jeremyboycool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Gary Kwana View Post
    Whatever happens, we will survive and thrive! Humans always have ....+
    That is just a platitude. This is not really a question of if we will survive and thrive, instead it is a question of the best way to survive and thrive.

    Simply because we will be here tomorrow, does not mean we can just forget about today. What happens now affects what will happen in the future, so the question is: Do we want the future to be better than now, or do we want it to be worst?
    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Stephen Hawking

  2. #82
    Resident Atheist Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Orangevale ,Ca
    Posts
    18,682
    THE HISTORY OF CO2 IN THE GLOBAL
    ATMOSPHERE
    It is an undisputed fact that all life on Earth is carbon based
    and that the source of this carbon is CO2, which cycles
    through the global atmosphere. The original source of CO2 in
    the atmosphere is thought to be massive volcanic eruptions
    during the Earth’s early history, the extreme heat of which
    caused the oxidation of carbon in the Earth’s interior to form
    CO2.
    3 Today, as a minor gas at 0.04 per cent, CO2 permeates
    the entire atmosphere and has been absorbed by the oceans
    and other water bodies (the hydrosphere), where it provides
    the food for photosynthetic species such a phytoplankton
    and kelp. If there were no CO2 or an insufficient level of CO2
    in the atmosphere and hydrosphere, there would be no life as
    we know it on our planet.
    On a relatively short-term basis (years to hundreds of
    years), the carbon cycle is a complex series of exchanges
    among the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, living species
    and decomposing organic matter in soils and sediments.
    Over the long term (millions to billions of years), the majority
    of the carbon that has been absorbed from the atmosphere
    by plants has been lost to the cycle into deep deposits of
    fossil fuels and carbonaceous rock (minerals) such as
    chalk, limestone, marble and dolomite. By far the majority of
    the carbon sequestered over the long term is in the form of
    carbonaceous rock.
    We do not have a good estimate of the total amount of CO2
    that has been emitted from volcanic activity into the global
    atmosphere. We do not know the total amount of carbon
    that has been lost to long-term sequestration in fossil fuels
    and carbonaceous rock, but we do have order-of-magnitude
    estimates. We do have quantitative estimates of the level of
    CO2 in the atmosphere going back more than 600 million
    years, i.e., the net result of additions from volcanic events,
    losses to deep deposition in carbonaceous rocks and
    fossil fuels, the biomass of living species and decomposing
    organic matter. These estimates become more accurate
    the closer they are to the present. This paper will focus on
    the past 540 million years and in particular the past 140
    million years.
    The best estimate of CO2 concentration in the global
    atmosphere 540 million years ago is 7,000 ppm, with a wide
    margin of error. (See Figure 1). For the sake of discussion,
    we will accept that number, which indicates a mass of more
    than 13,000 billion tonnes (Gt) of carbon in the atmosphere,
    17 times the present level, during the Cambrian Explosion,
    when multicellular life evolved. This is considered the
    advent of modern life, when both plant and animal species
    diversified rapidly in warm seas and later colonized the land
    during a warm terrestrial climate.4 Prior to this, for more than
    three billion years, life was largely unicellular, microscopic
    and confined to the sea.
    Figure 1. Graph of global temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration over the past 600 million years. Note both temperature and CO2 are lower
    today than they have been during most of the era of modern life on Earth since the Cambrian Period. Also, note that this does not indicate a lock-step
    cause-effect relationship between the two parameters.5
    [8]
    FRONTIER CENTRE FOR PUBLIC POLICY
    The Rise of Terrestrial Woody Plants
    One of the most significant developments during the
    establishment of terrestrial plant species was the
    evolution of wood, a complex of cellulose and lignin that
    provided a rigid stem. This allowed plants to place their
    photosynthetic structures higher toward the sun, thus
    providing a competitive advantage. The evolution of lignin
    also provided protection against attack from bacteria
    and fungi, as no species had yet evolved enzymes that
    could digest lignin. There followed in the Devonian Period
    the spread of vast forests of tree ferns, trees and shrubs,
    resulting in a massive increase in living biomass compared
    with the low-lying vegetation prior to the woody era. This
    orders-of-magnitude increase in biomass came with an
    inevitable drawing down of CO2 from the atmosphere, as
    wood is almost 50 per cent carbon. From that time until the
    present day, the biomass of trees and other woody plants
    far surpasses the sum of all other species combined.6
    It could be expected that once living biomass had reached a
    much higher but relatively stable state that the net withdrawal
    of CO2 would end and would level off at a concentration
    somewhat lower than the approximately 4,000 ppm (7,600
    Gt of carbon) in the mid-Devonian. However, this was not the
    case. CO2 levels continued to drop, with minor fluctuations
    perhaps caused by volcanic activity, for the next 80 million
    to 100 million years into the mid-Carboniferous Period until
    they reached a level of about 400 ppm (760 Gt of carbon),
    similar to present-day levels. Therefore, during this era, the
    level of CO2 in the atmosphere was reduced by about 90
    per cent. Many of the massive coal deposits we are mining
    today were formed during this period.
    There are two competing hypotheses regarding the
    formation of coal during these ancient times. One hypothesis
    postulates that coal deposits came about as trees died and
    fell into vast swamps where they were preserved, eventually
    buried by deep sediments, and over time transformed into
    coal by heat and pressure.7 An alternative explanation
    is that the decomposer species of bacteria, fungi and
    insects had not yet developed the complex set of digestive
    enzymes necessary to digest wood. Therefore, the dead
    trees in forests simply piled up on top of one another and
    new trees grew upon an ever-deepening layer of dead trees
    until eventually they were buried, and heat and pressure
    converted them into coal.8
    The end of the Carboniferous and the beginning of the
    Permian marked a reversal of the downward trend in CO2,
    and over the next 125 million years, CO2 rose to about 2,500
    ppm in the Jurassic Period. During this period, species of
    Figure 2. The graph of CO2 and temperature shown in Figure 1 with the trend in CO2 concentration in the global atmosphere represented by the green arrow.
    Note the uptick at the far right of the graph representing the reversal of the 600 million-year downward trend due primarily to emissions of CO2 from the use
    of fossil fuels for energy. Note that even today, at 400 ppm, CO2 is still far lower than it has been during the most of this 600 million history.
    [9]
    FRONTIER CENTRE FOR PUBLIC POLICY
    fungi developed enzymes that could digest the lignin in
    wood.9 It is plausible that these species consumed vast
    stores of dead wood near the surface, with the attendant
    release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Coincident with the
    development of decomposers that could digest lignin was
    a significant reduction of coal formation. Volcanic activity
    and outgassing of CO2 from the oceans may also have
    played a role in bringing CO2 levels higher.
    Regardless of which coal-forming hypothesis one favours,
    and a combination of the two is plausible, if fungi and other
    species had not evolved to produce the enzymes necessary
    to digest lignin, it is likely that atmospheric CO2 would have
    continued to decline until it reached the 150 ppm threshold
    for the survival of plant life. At that point, species of plants
    would begin to die for lack of CO2, and as more carbon was
    sequestered as wood and as calcium carbonate in marine
    deposits, living biomass would begin to shrink steadily until
    most or all of it died. It was therefore most fortuitous that
    white rot fungi and other species evolved the enzymes to
    digest lignin, or the history of life on Earth would have been
    considerably shorter.
    The Second Long Decline of CO2
    With this historical background, we will now focus on the
    period from 140 million years ago to the present. Having
    recovered to approximately 2,500 ppm, CO2 concentrations
    gradually and steadily fell to what is likely the lowest level it
    has been in the history of the Earth. The ice cores drilled
    at Vostok Station in Antarctica indicate that at the height
    of the last major glaciation event, 18,000 years ago, CO2
    dropped to roughly 180 ppm (See Figure 3).10 This is only
    30 ppm above the level of starvation for most plant species,
    which is 150 ppm.11
    One hundred and forty million years ago at 2,500 ppm, the
    atmosphere held 4,750 Gt of carbon as CO2. At 180 ppm,
    the atmosphere held 342 Gt of carbon as CO2, which over
    the 140-million-year period represented a loss of 4,530 Gt
    of carbon or 92.8 per cent of atmospheric CO2. While we do
    not have accurate estimates of volcanic emissions of CO2
    or of deep ocean sequestration of CO2 over this period,
    we do have a very good representation of the net effect
    on atmospheric levels of CO2. Because of this decline, on
    a number of occasions during the present Pleistocene
    Ice Age, CO2 has dropped during major glaciations to
    dangerously low levels relative to the requirements of plants
    for their growth and survival. At 180 ppm, there is no doubt
    that the growth of many plant species was substantially
    curtailed.12
    The solubility pump and the biological pump continuously
    remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.13 The
    Figure 3. Graph of temperature and CO2 concentration from the Vostok ice cores in Antarctica showing that atmospheric CO2 concentration descended
    close to 180 ppm at 18,000 YBP (years before present). Note that CO2 levels tend to lag behind changes in temperature.14
    [10]
    FRONTIER CENTRE FOR PUBLIC POLICY
    solubility pump refers to the high solubility of CO2 in cold
    ocean water at higher latitudes where sinking cold seawater
    carries it into the depths of the ocean. The biological pump
    refers to the sequestration of carbon from biomass and
    calcium carbonate (CaCO3) from planktonic shells, corals
    and shellfish into the deep ocean sediments. During the
    past 140 million years, these processes have removed
    more than 90 per cent of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
    The steady reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere over the
    past 140 million years from 2,500 ppm to 180 ppm, prior
    to the Holocene interglacial period and prior to significant
    human emissions of CO2, amounts to a net loss from the
    global atmosphere of 32 thousand tonnes (Kt) of carbon
    every year. We can reasonably surmise that the primary
    cause of this downward trend was CaCO3 deposition from
    plankton and coral reefs in marine sediments.15 During the
    major glaciations, cooling oceans may also have absorbed
    additional CO2.
    CO2 Rises from the Brink
    After the most recent major glaciation peaked 18,000 years
    ago, CO2 levels began to rise in the atmosphere, reaching
    260 ppm 10,000 years ago and 280 ppm prior to the
    Industrial Revolution when fossil fuels became dominant for
    energy production. The most plausible explanation for the
    majority of this rise is outgassing of CO2 from the oceans as
    they warmed with a warming climate.16 Since then, human
    emissions of CO2 have contributed to raising the level to
    about 400 ppm, a level perhaps not experienced during the
    past 10 million to 20 million years. Since the onset of the
    Industrial Age, CO2 has risen by 120 ppm or approximately
    230 Gt of carbon in a little more than 100 years, whereas
    the lesser “natural” increase from 180 ppm to 280 ppm took
    about 15,000 years. The increase during the Industrial Age
    is likely due to a combination of fossil fuel combustion, landuse
    change, cement production and possibly outgassing
    of CO2 from the oceans due to rising global temperature.
    This latter point is the subject of much discussion and
    contention but is not of principal concern in the context of
    this paper.
    [11]
    FRONTIER CENTRE FOR PUBLIC POLICY
    THE DISTRIBUTION OF CARBON TODAY
    The global atmosphere today, at about 400 ppm CO2,
    contains approximately 850 Gt of carbon compared with
    the oceans, which contain approximately 38,000 Gt of
    carbon, most of which was initially absorbed as CO2 from
    the atmosphere. (See Figure 4) Therefore, the emission or
    absorption of 1 per cent of CO2 from or into the oceans
    would make a 45 per cent change to the CO2 level in the
    atmosphere at the present concentration of CO2.
    The truly astounding figure is the estimate of 100,000,000
    Gt (one hundred million billion tons, also known as 100
    quadrillion tons) of carbon in carbonaceous rocks, all or
    most of which originated from CO2 in the global atmosphere.
    If all that CO2 had remained in the atmosphere, it would
    represent approximately 70 current global atmospheres
    by weight at 100 per cent CO2. This highlights the fact that
    during the Earth’s early times, vast quantities of CO2 were
    outgassed from volcanism. During the past 3.5 billion years,
    the vast majority (about 99.5 per cent) of the carbon in that
    CO2 has been sequestered in carbonaceous rocks and to a
    much lesser extent, fossil fuels.
    It is interesting to note that our closest neighbouring planets,
    Venus and Mars, have atmospheres that are dominated by
    CO2, likely from early volcanic eruptions. Neither of them
    evolved life that could convert the CO2 to CaCO3 to be
    buried in marine sediments.
    CO2 in the Oceans
    The solubility of CO2 in the oceans is dependent on
    the salinity and temperature of the oceans and on CO2
    concentration in the atmosphere. Salinity varies among
    oceans between 30 parts per thousand and 38 parts per
    thousand and is relatively constant over time. The oceans
    have warmed since the height of the Little Ice Age, so it is
    likely there has been a net outgassing from them during the
    past 300 years, at least until human-caused emissions of
    CO2 began in earnest. From the literature, it appears that
    we do not have definitive quantitative data for the fate
    Figure 4. Depiction of the global carbon budget in Gt of carbon. Values in blue are stocks of carbon while values in red are annual flows. Note that the ocean
    contains nearly 50 times as much carbon as the atmosphere does, and the ocean and atmosphere are in constant flux.17
    [12]
    FRONTIER CENTRE FOR PUBLIC POLICY
    of the current 10 Gt of carbon emitted annually due to
    human activities. We can measure the increase in the CO2
    concentration in the atmosphere, but some of this may be
    due to outgassing from the warming oceans rather than
    from human-caused emissions. Many scholars conclude
    that the oceans are absorbing roughly 25 per cent of the
    human CO2 emissions, therefore negating the possibility
    of a net outgassing of CO2. It is generally recognized that
    global plant biomass is increasing because of increased
    CO2 in the atmosphere, but quantifying this accurately
    is difficult. One recent paper concluded that most of the
    short-term CO2 uptake is by terrestrial plants and that very
    little, if any, is absorbed by the oceans.18
    In recent years there has been an outpouring of papers
    warning that if CO2 emissions continue, and CO2 levels in
    the atmosphere continue to rise, that a phenomenon called
    “ocean acidification” will occur that will threaten the entire
    marine food chain. Some postulate that the decrease in the pH
    of the oceans will render it impossible for calcifying species
    such as corals, shellfish, and calcifying species of plankton
    such as coccolithophores and foraminifera to produce their
    shells from CaCO3. The author has recently published an
    in-depth paper on this subject. The paper concludes that
    “ocean acidification” is a fabrication and provides five key
    factors that make such an outcome impossible.19
    CO2 in the Modern Era
    The most important question facing a species on Earth
    today is how long would it have been in the absence of
    human-caused CO2 emissions until the gradual depletion of
    CO2 in the atmosphere fell to levels that began to decrease
    biomass due to starvation, thus signaling the beginning of
    the end of life on Earth?
    It is commonly believed that volcanic activity results in
    massive emissions of CO2 comparable to or greater than
    human-caused emissions. This is not the case. Whereas
    the original atmospheric CO2 was the result of massive
    outgassing from the Earth’s interior, there is no evidence that
    large volumes of new CO2 were added to the atmosphere
    during the 140-million-year decline leading to the present
    era. The eruption of Mount Pinatubo, the largest in recent
    history, is estimated to have released the equivalent of
    2 per cent of the annual human-caused CO2 emissions.
    Therefore, in the absence of human-caused emissions, it
    could reasonably be presumed that CO2 levels would have
    continued to fall as they had done for the previous 140
    million years.20
    Judging by the timing of the many glacial and interglacial
    periods during the Pleistocene Ice Age, the next major
    glaciation period could begin any time. Interglacial periods
    have generally been of 10,000 years’ duration, and this
    Holocene interglacial period began nearly 12,000 years
    ago. In the absence of human-caused CO2 emissions and
    other environmental impacts, there is no reason to doubt
    that another major glaciation would have occurred, following
    the pattern that has been established for at least the past
    800,000 years, as established by the European Project for Ice
    Coring in Antarctica (EPICA),21 and presumably for the past
    2.5 million years of the Pletstocene Ice Age. These glaciations
    have coincided with the Milankovitch cycles.22 (See Figure
    5) The Milankovitch cycles are determined by oscillations in
    the Earth’s orbit and by cycles of the tilt of the Earth toward
    the sun. The strong correlation between the onset of major
    periods of glaciation during the past 800,000 years and the
    Milankovitch cycles has led the majority of earth scientists
    and climatologists to accept the hypothesis that the major
    glaciations are tied to the Milankovitch cycles in a causeeffect
    relationship.
    For 90 million years from the late Jurassic Period to the
    Early Tertiary Period, global temperature rose considerably
    while CO2 levels steadily declined.
    Then after the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, there
    began a 50-million-year cooling trend in global temperature
    to the current era. (See Figure 6) The Paleocene-Eocene
    Thermal Maximum saw an average global temperature
    [13]
    FRONTIER CENTRE FOR PUBLIC POLICY
    as much as 16°C higher than the temperature today. Yet,
    the ancestors of every species living today must have
    survived through this period, as they had also survived
    through previous much colder climates. It is instructive
    to note that despite the numerous periods of extreme
    climatic conditions and cataclysmic events, every species
    alive today is descended from species that survived those
    conditions. This leads one to question the predictions
    of mass species extinction and the collapse of human
    civilization if the average global temperature exceeds a rise
    of 2°C above today’s level.25
    It may seem surprising that the average global temperature
    could have been 16°C higher in previous ages, as this
    Figure 5. Graph showing the atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature from Antarctica for the most recent four interglacial periods, closely tied to
    the Milankovitch cycles of 100,000 years. This graph is based on data from the 420,000 year record obtained from the Vostok ice cores drilled by Russian
    scientists.23 Note the gradual nature of the onset of colder temperatures and the rapid warming at the end of the cycle. Note that the peak warming during
    the most recent interglacial period (the Holocene) is lower than during the previous three interglacial periods.24
    Figure 6. Global surface temperature from 65 million YBP showing the major cooling trend over the past 50 million years. While the poles were considerably
    warmer than they are today, there was much less warming in the tropics, which remained habitable throughout. The Earth is in one of the coldest periods
    during the past 600 million years.26
    [14]
    FRONTIER CENTRE FOR PUBLIC POLICY
    would appear to render parts of the Earth that are warm
    today virtually uninhabitable. The key to understanding this
    is that when the Earth warms, it does so disproportionally,
    depending on the latitude. While the Arctic and Antarctic
    experience considerable warming, there is much less
    warming in the tropics. Thus, the tropical regions remain
    habitable while the high latitudes shift from polar to
    temperate, and during the warmest ages, they shift to a
    tropical climate.
    It is clear from the 800,000-year Antarctic ice core record
    that the coldest periods during major glaciations coincide
    with the lowest levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. (see Figure
    5) The correlation is certainly strong enough during this
    period to suggest a causal relationship between CO2 and
    temperature. However, there is disagreement in the literature
    about which is the cause and which is the effect. Those who
    ascribe the warming over the past century to greenhouse
    gas emissions, CO2 in particular, also tend to agree with the
    position set forth in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth: The
    Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can
    Do about It, that the warming during the interglacial periods
    is caused by rising CO2 levels.27 However, it is problematic
    to postulate how the Milankovitch cycles could cause an
    increase or decrease in atmospheric CO2 levels, whereas
    it is plausible that the Milankovitch cycles could cause a
    fluctuation in global temperature due to changes in solar
    radiation, which in turn could cause either CO2 outgassing
    from or absorption into the oceans. Indeed, both sets of ice
    core data from Antarctica show that changes in temperature
    usually precede changes in CO2 levels, suggesting that
    temperature change is the cause of change in the level of
    CO2.
    28 Some have suggested that although the onset of
    warming after a glaciation is caused by the Milankovitch
    cycles, the subsequent outgassing of CO2 from the ocean
    then becomes the predominant driver of further warming.29
    Presumably, it would also be postulated that the cooling
    leading to glaciation is triggered by the Milankovitch cycle
    and then driven by reduced CO2 levels due to ocean
    absorption. This hypothesis is not proven.
    It is extremely unlikely or perhaps impossible to imagine how
    CO2 could have increased from a pre-industrial 280 ppm
    to 400 ppm in the absence of human-caused emissions.
    No other species, existing or imagined in the near future,
    is capable of digging and drilling into the massive deposits
    of fossil fuels and then burning them so as to release CO2
    back into the atmosphere from where it had come in the first
    place. Many scientists think this increase in atmospheric
    CO2 is the dominant cause of the slight warming (0.5C) of
    the atmosphere over the past 65 years. Only time will tell
    if this is the case. Since the Little Ice Age peaked around
    1700, the climate has been warming in fits and starts for
    about 300 years. It is possible that the most recent warming
    is a continuation of the longer period of warming that had
    already begun long before human-caused CO2 emissions
    could have been a factor.
    [15]
    FRONTIER CENTRE FOR PUBLIC POLICY
    HIGHER CO2 CONCENTRATIONS WILL
    INCREASE PLANT GROWTH AND
    BIOMASS
    It has been well demonstrated that the increase in CO2 in
    the atmosphere is responsible for increased plant growth
    on a global scale. Many studies suggest that nearly 25 per
    cent of human-caused CO2 emissions, or 2.5 Gt of carbon
    annually, are absorbed by plants, thus increasing global
    plant biomass. A recent study postulates that up to 50 per
    cent of human CO2 emissions are absorbed by increased
    plant growth.30 This has been described as a “greening
    of the Earth” as CO2 reaches concentrations well above
    the near-starvation levels experienced during the major
    glaciations of the Pleistocene.31 The most prestigious
    Australian science body, the Commonwealth Scientific
    and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), has shown
    that CO2 particularly benefits plants that are adapted to dry
    climates. In higher CO2 environments, they become more
    efficient at photosynthesis, growing faster without using
    more water.32
    One of the most impressive records comes from an
    experimental forest in Germany where there is a continuous
    Figure 8. Change in net primary productivity of vegetation 1982 to 2010. The driest regions, such as Western Australia, sub-Saharan Africa, western India
    and the Great Plains of North America, show the greatest increase in plant growth.36
    Figure 7. Craig Idso,expert on CO2 and author of the CO2Science website34 demonstrating the growth-rate of pine trees under ambient conditions versus
    the addition of 150 ppm, 300 ppm and 450 ppm CO2. In a higher CO2 world there will be a great increase in the growth of food crops, forests, and wild
    landscapes around the world. Studies also demonstrate that higher CO2 levels in the oceans will result in increased growth of phytoplankton and other
    marine plants.35
    [16]
    FRONTIER CENTRE FOR PUBLIC POLICY
    record of forest growth since 1870. Since 1960, as CO2
    emissions began to rise rapidly, the growth rate of individual
    trees has increased by 32 per cent to 77 per cent. While
    some of this may be due to the slight increase in temperature
    since 1960, the much higher growth rate is consistent with
    laboratory and field studies on the effect of increased CO2
    levels on plants.33
    It is not widely known that greenhouse operators worldwide
    inject additional CO2 into their greenhouses in order to increase
    the growth and yield of their crops. Among horticulturalists, it
    is well known that this practice can increase growth by 40 per
    cent or more. This is because the optimum level of CO2 for
    plant growth is between 1,000 ppm and 3,000 ppm in air, much
    higher than the 400 ppm in the global atmosphere today.37
    Every species on Earth, including our own, is descended from
    ancestors that thrived in climates with much higher levels of
    CO2 than are present today.
    Discussion
    The debate about climate change has one side insisting
    that the “science is settled.” Yet, there is no scientific proof
    that increased CO2 will result in disaster, as CO2 has been
    higher during most of the history of life on Earth than it is
    today. On the other hand, it can be stated without a doubt
    that if CO2 once again falls to the level it was only 18,000
    years ago, or lower, there would be a catastrophe unlike any
    known in human history. We are advised by many scientists
    that we should be worried about CO2 levels climbing higher
    when, in fact, we should actually be worried about CO2
    levels sinking lower.
    Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations in
    the Future
    If humans had not begun to use fossil fuels for energy, it is
    reasonable to assume that atmospheric CO2 concentration
    would have continued to drop as it has done for the past
    140 million years. It is also reasonable to assume that
    the Earth’s climate would continue to fluctuate between
    relatively long periods of glaciation and relatively short
    periods of interglacial climate similar to the present climate.
    Given continued withdrawal of carbon from the atmosphere
    into the ocean sediments, it would only be a matter of time
    before CO2 dropped to 150 ppm or lower during a period
    of glaciation. At the average rate of 32 Kt of carbon lost
    annually, this would occur in less than two million years from
    now. In other words, the beginning of the end of most life
    on planet Earth would begin in fewer years into the future
    than our genus of primates, Homo, has existed as a distinct
    taxonomic unit.
    It is instructive to note that our species is a tropical species
    that evolved at the equator in ecosystems as warm or
    warmer than today’s. We were only able to leave the warmth
    of the tropical climate due to harnessing fire, wearing
    clothing and building shelters. This allowed us to settle in
    temperate climes and even Arctic conditions by the sea
    where domesticated dogs as well as marine mammals made
    life possible for a very small population. However, we cannot
    grow food crops in abundance on glaciers or in frozen soil.
    Moreover, we would not be able to grow much of anything
    anywhere if the level of CO2 went below 150 ppm. There is a
    distinct possibility that no amount of additional CO2 will shift
    the climate out of the next major period of glaciation. This
    is not a reason to abandon hope but rather to marvel at the
    fact that we can actually put some of the CO2 needed for life
    back into the atmosphere while at the same time enjoying
    abundant, reasonably priced energy from fossil fuels.
    There has been a gradual net loss of CO2 from the
    atmosphere during the past 550 million years from
    approximately 14,000 Gt to approximately 370 Gt at the
    lowest level during the height of the last glaciation. This
    is a reduction of nearly 98 per cent of one of the most
    essential nutrients for life on Earth. In the absence of
    human CO2 emissions over the past century, it is difficult
    to imagine how this process of continuous removal of CO2
    would be interrupted. Massive volcanism on a scale not
    seen for more than 200 million years would be required to
    [17]
    FRONTIER CENTRE FOR PUBLIC POLICY
    bring about a reversal in the long-term CO2 trend that has
    now been achieved by human CO2 emissions. There is no
    doubt the Earth’s interior has cooled substantially over
    its roughly 4.6-billion-year existence. This makes massive
    volcanism an ever-decreasing likelihood. There is no other
    plausible natural mechanism to return carbon to the global
    atmosphere in the form of CO2.
    The present Holocene interglacial has already endured
    longer than some previous interglacial periods. The
    Holocene is also somewhat cooler than previous
    interglacial periods. Of more urgent concern than the
    possible starvation of life two million years from now is what
    would happen at the onset of the next glaciation, possibly a
    relatively short time from now. In the absence of human CO2
    emissions, both temperature and CO2 would have dropped
    to levels that would result in a continuous reduction in plant
    growth, bringing in climatic conditions similar to or perhaps
    even more severe than those that occurred in previous
    glaciations. This would certainly lead to widespread famine
    and likely the eventual collapse of human civilization. This
    scenario would not require two million years but possibly
    only a few thousand. Even if the conditions of the Little
    Ice Age reoccurred in the next hundreds of years with a
    human population of nine billion or more, we can be sure
    the population would not be nine billion for long.
    There is a strong argument to be made that the Earth is
    already in a cooling trend that is descending into the next
    100,000-year cycle of major glaciation. See Figure 5 and
    note that in the three preceding interglacial periods, there
    was a sharp peak followed by a steady downward trend
    in temperature. The peak temperature in this Holocene
    interglacial period was during the Holocene Optimum
    between 5,000 and 9,000 years ago. Since then, the
    warming peaks have been diminishing, and the cool periods
    have been colder. The Little Ice Age, which peaked about
    300 years ago, was possibly the coldest period of climate
    since the Holocene Optimum.39
    A Paradigm Shift in the Perception
    of CO2
    Independent scientist James Lovelock provides an
    interesting example of both these contrasting predictions
    of future catastrophe versus salvation regarding CO2
    Figure 9. Reconstructed Greenland mean temperature anomalies (top) and Antarctic CO2 concentration (bottom). Halving the temperature anomalies to
    allow for polar amplification gives a reasonable approximation of global temperature change in the Holocene. Since the Holocene Optimum began about
    9,000 years before present (ka BP), global temperature has fallen by ~1°C, though CO2 concentration rose throughout.38
    [18]

    This abrupt reversal of Lovelock’s interpretation of CO2 is
    precisely what is required universally to avoid the tragedy
    of depriving billions of people of reasonably priced, reliable
    energy, especially those with a need to lift themselves
    out of poverty. There must be a total paradigm shift from
    demonizing fossil fuels and fearing CO2 as a toxic pollutant
    to celebrating CO2 as the giver of life that it is while
    continuing to use fossil fuels ever-more efficiently. Like
    Lovelock, we should be hopeful that CO2 will prove to be
    the moderate warming influence that it is predicted to be in
    theory. A somewhat warmer world with a higher level of CO2
    in the atmosphere would result in a greener world with more
    plant biomass, higher yields of food crops and trees, a more
    hospitable climate in high northern latitudes and a possible
    reduction in the likelihood of another major glaciation.
    It is highly probable, and ironic, that the existence of life itself
    may have predetermined its own eventual demise due mainly
    to the development of CaCO3 as armour plating in marine
    organisms.45 The fact that humans appear able to reverse
    this fate temporarily due to our recycling of CO2 back into
    the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels for energy verges on
    the miraculous. Nevertheless, there is only so much fossil
    fuel, and once burned, it is not renewable in the short to
    medium term. The vast bulk of carbon is sequestered into
    carbonaceous rocks, mainly as CaCO3. Today, about 5 per
    cent of human CO2 emissions are derived from converting
    CaCO3 with heat into CO2 and CaO (lime) to manufacture
    cement. Therefore, when fossil fuels become scarce in
    future centuries, and if CO2 again begins to dwindle, we will
    have the option of producing additional CO2 by burning
    limestone with nuclear or solar energy, with lime for cement
    as a useful by-product. This has the potential to extend
    the existence of a highly productive living Earth into the far
    distant future.
    It is clear from the preceding discussion that rather than
    bringing on a catastrophic climate condition, human CO2
    emissions are serving to reinstate a balance to the global
    carbon cycle. By reversing the 140-million-year decline in
    atmospheric CO2, we are helping to ensure the continuation
    of carbon-based life on Earth.
    [19]
    FRONTIER CENTRE FOR PUBLIC POLICY
    CONCLUSION
    CO2 is essential for life, and twice in the history of modern
    life there have been periods of steep decline in the
    concentration of CO2 in the global atmosphere. If this decline
    were to have continued at the same rate into the future, CO2
    would eventually fall to levels insufficient to support plant
    life, possibly in less than two million years. More worrisome
    is the possibility in the nearer future that during a future
    glaciation, CO2 may fall to 180 ppm or lower, thus greatly
    reducing the growth of food crops and other plants. Human
    CO2 emissions have staved off this possibility so that at least
    during a period of glaciation, CO2 would be high enough to
    maintain a productive agricultural industry.
    A 140 million year decline in CO2 to levels that came close
    to threatening the survival of life on Earth can hardly be
    described as “the balance of nature”. To that extent human
    emissions are restoring a balance to the global carbon cycle
    by returning some of the CO2 back to the atmosphere that
    was drawn down by photosynthesis and CaCO3 production
    and subsequently lost to deep sediments. This extremely
    positive aspect of human CO2 emissions must surely be
    weighed against the unproven hypothesis that human CO2
    emissions are mainly responsible for the slight warming
    of the climate in recent years and will cause catastrophic
    warming over the coming decades. The fact that the current
    warming began about 300 years ago during the Little Ice
    Age indicates that it may at least in part be the continuation
    of the same natural forces that have caused the climate to
    change through the ages.
    Despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary, much
    of Western society has been convinced that a global
    warming and a climate change crisis is upon us. The idea
    of catastrophic climate change is a powerful one, as it
    encompasses everything and everywhere on Earth. There
    is nowhere to hide from “carbon pollution.” There is also the
    combination of fear and guilt: we are fearful that driving our
    cars will kill our grandchildren, and we feel guilty for doing so.
    A powerful convergence of interests among key elites
    supports and drives the climate catastrophe narrative.
    Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations;
    politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the
    media has a field day with sensation and conflict; scientists
    and science institutions raise billions in public grants, create
    whole new institutions, and engage in a feeding frenzy of
    scary scenarios; businesses want to look green and receive
    huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be
    economic losers, such as large wind farms and solar arrays.
    Even the Pope of the Catholic Church has weighed in with
    a religious angle.
    Lost in all these machinations is the indisputable fact that
    the most important thing about CO2 is that it is essential
    for all life on Earth and that before humans began to burn
    fossil fuels, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was
    heading in a very dangerous direction for a very long time.
    Surely, the most “dangerous” change in climate in the short
    term would be to one that would not support sufficient food
    production to feed our own population. The current “pause”
    in global warming recorded by two satellites and thousands
    of weather balloons, now nearly two decades on, does give
    pause to the hypothesis that higher CO2 will inevitably lead
    to higher temperatures.46 During this period of no significant
    warming, about one-third of all human CO2 emissions since
    the beginning of the Industrial Age has been emitted into
    the atmosphere. The best outcome would be that CO2 does
    cause some measure of warming, but somewhat lower than
    that suggested by extreme predictions.47
    We should ask those who predict catastrophic climate
    change, including the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on
    Climate Change, some pressing questions regarding the
    outcome if humans had not intervened in the carbon cycle.
    • What evidence or argument is there that the global
    climate would not revert to another glacial period in
    keeping with the Milankovitch cycles as it has done
    repeatedly during at least the past 800,000 years?
    [20]
    FRONTIER CENTRE FOR PUBLIC POLICY
    • What evidence is there that we are not already
    past the maximum global temperature during this
    Holocene interglacial period?
    • How can we be certain that in the absence of
    human emissions the next cooling period would
    not be more severe than the recent Little Ice Age?
    • Given that the optimum CO2 level for plant growth
    is above 1,000 ppm and that CO2 has been above
    that level for most of the history of life, what sense
    does it make to call for a reduction in the level of
    CO2 in the absence of evidence of catastrophic
    climate change?
    • Is there any plausible scenario, in the absence
    of human emissions, that would end the gradual
    depletion of CO2 in the atmosphere until it reaches
    the starvation level for plants, hence for life on earth?
    These and many other questions about CO2, climate and
    plant growth require our serious consideration if we are to
    avoid making some very costly mistakes.
    Last edited by Dan; 09-11-16 at 03:03 PM.

  3. #83
    Maneater JawZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    21,935
    I don't know if Trump really wants to be the POTUS. Lots of rumors that he knew Fox was in trouble and saw a potential cash cow in a future TrumpTV (think FoxNews v2.0). Hard to say if that has any weight. Being that the SCOTUS is up for grabs, I would say that the GOP feels forced to win it...but then why with Trump if he wasn't serious? So in the end, this is more a proxy war for the SCOTUS. Its a shame that it has come to this but I guess we deserve it. Until we get real campaign finance reform, the Americans we desperately need in office will never be heard from so long as the war of ideas is contained between competing bank vaults. Truth, logic, science be damned.

    ...formerly the omnipotent UOD

  4. #84
    Freedom Fighter jeremyboycool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,985
    I think it is clear that Trump wants to be president, for what reasons, however that is not clear. He is an ambitious man, and being the President of the United States has a lot of appeal to a man like that. It obvious from the way he runs his businesses, that he plays by the letter of the laws rather than the spirit of the laws, which tells us he is not the virtuous type.

    As far as I can tell, people get into politics for two main reasons, either they are virtuous and truly want to help, or they are ambitious and want the prestige and power.

    What is unclear is what Trump's actual views are, he is using a George Wallace style of campaigning (playing on people's hates and fears), so really anything he says is suspicious. If he could start telling us how he plans to do something, instead if just saying what he plans on doing it, then that at least would show a plan to support his professed views.
    Last edited by jeremyboycool; 09-13-16 at 11:41 AM.
    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Stephen Hawking

  5. #85
    Resident Rodent Randy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    British Columbia Canada
    Posts
    12,001
    wtf USA? lol
    Deb did vote for Clinton or world war 3? gary?

    I was going to post a link to that thread, but the SG search results for "bullsh|t" were too numerous

    sometimes you have to think outside the box to get inside the box .

  6. #86
    Resident Rodent Randy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    British Columbia Canada
    Posts
    12,001
    i have a spare room and a couch so get your dibs in now!

    I was going to post a link to that thread, but the SG search results for "bullsh|t" were too numerous

    sometimes you have to think outside the box to get inside the box .

  7. #87
    Second Most EVIL YARDofSTUF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    69,982
    Kanye 2020.

  8. #88
    Resident Rodent Randy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    British Columbia Canada
    Posts
    12,001
    Quote Originally Posted by YARDofSTUF View Post
    Kanye 2020.
    bwhahahaha lmao

    Canada's immigration website appears to have crashed under a heavy load of traffic.

    As the U.S. election appeared to increasingly show a possible Donald Trump presidency, the federal government's Citizenship and Immigration site crashed.

    The website showed an internal server error Tuesday night.

    Throughout the U.S. election, many Americans said they would emigrate to Canada if Hillary Clinton lost.

    Punctuating the trend, a new dating site even launched – called Maple Match – that offered to hook up Americans wishing to move with Canadians looking for love

    I was going to post a link to that thread, but the SG search results for "bullsh|t" were too numerous

    sometimes you have to think outside the box to get inside the box .

  9. #89
    Resident Atheist Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Orangevale ,Ca
    Posts
    18,682
    start making room up there Randy ! LOL

    http://www.newsday.com/entertainment...ent-1.12588837

  10. #90
    resident plumber Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    .
    Posts
    13,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan View Post
    start making room up there Randy ! LOL

    http://www.newsday.com/entertainment...ent-1.12588837
    i bet ya not one of those *******s leave the good old USA, but i wish a few would

    GO TRUMP

  11. #91
    Resident Atheist Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Orangevale ,Ca
    Posts
    18,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    i bet ya not one of those *******s leave the good old USA, but i wish a few would

    GO TRUMP

  12. #92
    Freedom Fighter jeremyboycool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,985
    Republican or Democrat, left or right, this is not an election to be proud of, and a man like Trump should not be in the Oval Office. It is that our-party-must-win-at-any-cost mentality that left us with two undesirable choices; both the Democratic party and the Republican party failed the people in this election. Had Trump been facing Sanders, I think things would have turned out differently.
    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Stephen Hawking

  13. #93
    resident plumber Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    .
    Posts
    13,148
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremyboycool View Post
    ...................................., and a man like Trump should not be in the Oval Office.......................... .
    the majority of voting americans disagree with you on that point

  14. #94
    Freedom Fighter jeremyboycool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    the majority of voting americans disagree with you on that point
    Actually Clinton won the popular vote, and exit polls showed that the majority thought Trump was unfit for president. They were not voting for Trump, instead they were voting against Clinton. Which is why I think had it been Sanders he would have lost, and lost hard.
    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Stephen Hawking

  15. #95
    Second Most EVIL YARDofSTUF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    69,982
    They were voting against the current government as well. And those people should be proud, they voted in a man that was given no chance the morning of the election.

    On the bright side, Trumps speeches since winning have been much better than the things he was saying during the race. Have to see how unhappy his supporters are after the wall doesn't get built.

    Trump vs Sanders would have been different but it could have ended in similar fashion.

  16. #96
    Freedom Fighter jeremyboycool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,985
    I just hope this ends all that ridiculous nonsense about rigged elections.
    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Stephen Hawking

  17. #97
    Freedom Fighter jeremyboycool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,985
    Quote Originally Posted by YARDofSTUF View Post
    They were voting against the current government as well. And those people should be proud, they voted in a man that was given no chance the morning of the election.

    On the bright side, Trumps speeches since winning have been much better than the things he was saying during the race. Have to see how unhappy his supporters are after the wall doesn't get built.

    Trump vs Sanders would have been different but it could have ended in similar fashion.
    One thing that drew people to Sanders was his anti-establishment position.
    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Stephen Hawking

  18. #98
    Freedom Fighter jeremyboycool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,985
    I also desperately hope this is the last we see of the Clintons in a presidential election. They mean well, but they just hurt their own party.
    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Stephen Hawking

  19. #99
    Moderator YeOldeStonecat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Somewhere along the shoreline in New England
    Posts
    50,876
    Quote Originally Posted by YARDofSTUF View Post
    They were voting against the current government as well. And those people should be proud, they voted in a man that was given no chance the morning of the election.

    On the bright side, Trumps speeches since winning have been much better than the things he was saying during the race. Have to see how unhappy his supporters are after the wall doesn't get built.

    Trump vs Sanders would have been different but it could have ended in similar fashion.
    Yup...damn close race, latest count..the difference is something like 219,000-ish votes. Out of ~120 million votes...that's a sliver of a difference.
    And Trump worked the states that counted, better than her. The Democrats are crying about that...saying to get rid of the electoral votes, BUT..Hillery played a worse game by beating Bernie, with that Superdelegate deal.

    .
    MORNING WOOD Lumber Company
    Guinness for Strength!!!

  20. #100
    Junior Member MadDoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Looks dark
    Posts
    0
    Bla bla bla.

    What in the hell are they going to do about his hair?
    People will forget what you said... and people will forget what you did... but people will never forget how you made them feel.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 05-14-12, 07:36 AM
  2. Things that will happen if a "Liberal" is elected president!
    By YARDofSTUF in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-29-07, 12:40 AM
  3. If Kerry is elected
    By Blisster in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 10-30-04, 09:49 AM
  4. Donald Trump
    By TrUtHsMaCkEr in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-07-04, 09:31 PM
  5. Roody & Prey for President/Vice President
    By Roody in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 10-04-04, 02:41 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •