The mods early on recognized where this thread might go. This post is an example of keeping "Discussion of politics ... in association with the topic of this forum." Global warming is a polarizing issue with significant political overtones; with minor exceptions, posts on this issue have been removed from this thread. We're a long way from November 2008 and the moderation team will channel discussion away from any issue of political contention.
__________________
Bob
Last edited by CanoeStream; 12-09-2007 at 10:54 AM..
Reason: Return to open forum
Per NOAA, "Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years."
The University of Minnesota is losing royalties due to expiration of it's patent on the honeycrisp apple. But the universities of Minnesota and Illinois have long collaborated on producing grain crops optimized for the 450-500 ppmv level. Sounds like more royalties coming!
For those interested in learning about the 1200+ local weather stations that are used by NOAA to gather historic weather info, check out the site Watts Up With That?.
There are standards for appropriately-sited weather stations, but you might be surprised by how often and how spectacularly these standards are violated. My favorite is the weather station on the rooftop of the Santa Rosa Press Democrat building.
Yes you're technicaly right (as a trained Agronomist) crops do better with higher concentration of CO2. It's natures corrective path for environmental balance (plants 'exhale' oxygen) thus the more plant growth the more oxygen. Seaweed will most likley do better because of the higher CO2 concentration in oceans.
The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years."
Bob,
I realize that the Airstream community contains a lot of "older" folks, but I don't think any of them are old enough to have been around to measure the CO2 levels 420,000 years ago. LOL!
In an effort to enhance your royalty influx I'll be sure to do my part to help us get to the 450 ppmv level while your still around to collect.
Had to massage the entries to make it work but here's how I made it that big a number.
20,000 miles a year driving this past year. Have already put 15,000 on our new '08 F250. Most of those miles towing. (There wasn't a choice for a 3/4 ton truck in the vehicle option)
I'm average on the home heating/cooling useage.
However, where I rack up the points is work related.
I drive 28 miles each way to the airport (a key component in this equation as it relates to planes ) The good part of this test is the truck sits there for 7 days. I then fly commercially to start my 7 days on work schedule. So I figure I average 4 - 6 hours on each one of these trips to work. (I have airlined to Beijing to get to work , BTW from Chicago to Beijing after watching all 6 movies in business class you still have two hours of flying to do yet). That works out to 46 flights a year.
Now the fun part, when I get to "work" I fly a long range business jet. One that can go 4,500 miles non-stop. I figure about another 100 trips of of 4-6 hours more or less.
The airline selections would only allow me to enter up to 99 so I had to spread those around a bit to get my total flights.
Until those that complain and try to scare us get serious then I'll get serious as then it may affect my job, know what I mean?
Folks, this thread keeps getting dragged into the political arena. If it keeps happening, we're going to have to close it. The subject matter is interesting, but having a moderator continually revisit the thread and delete politics does get old.
So, please, do your best to keep the thread on-topic, and not political.
The mods early on recognized where this thread might go. This post is an example of keeping "Discussion of politics ... in association with the topic of this forum." Global warming is a polarizing issue with significant political overtones; with minor exceptions, posts on this issue have been removed from this thread. We're a long way from November 2008 and the moderation team will channel discussion away from any issue of political contention.
I am sorry this has been such a hot topic and keeps the moderators busy. I thought only the people that wanted to take the test would post with their results. Being apolitical myself, I didn't even think it had anything to do with politics. If you get tired of hauling posts off to incarceration, just feel free to close down the entire hot-bed operation.
Now, I'm just wondering if its a common misdenomer that the Earth is actually round or that atoms are indivisible. I just kind of took everyone's word on it myself. Course I think it was a source of contention for some fellows a while back. Those ideas were founded in abstract, philosophical reasoning rather than experimentation and empirical observation. Their nature in philosophy varied considerably over time and between cultures and schools, and often had spiritual elements. Nevertheless, the basic ideas were adopted by scientists because it elegantly explained new discoveries. And of course, I know myself when something is true or not because I have seen it on TV with my own 2 eyes. It's one thing to disagree or agree on the basis of your own experience with a subject but quite another to adopt someone else's opinions as your own on the basis of who you wish to side with. All I know is nothing, but do tell... who determines what is fact and who writes the books that stay????
Oh do behave out there.
__________________ Carol
“One’s destination is never a place, but a new way of seeing things.” - Henry Miller
Folks, this thread keeps getting dragged into the political arena. If it keeps happening, we're going to have to close it. The subject matter is interesting, but having a moderator continually revisit the thread and delete politics does get old.
So, please, do your best to keep the thread on-topic, and not political.
Terry,
The essence of this topic is based on one political view point... it started in the political arena and did not need to be "dragged in." That being said, I'm confidant the original poster did not intend it to be political in nature.
I think you are going to find that if this topic is continually striped of any rebuttal it will just serve to illicit further commentary of the likes you are trying to avoid.
I guess it depends on how/what political view someone believes your posts to be since some of mine were pulled that are less political than many that are still on here. That whole topic and thread is political in nature but some of mine that intelligently challenged other's stances on the subject with a scientific challenge that had nothing to do with politics is pulled. I call foul.
__________________
Different strokes for different folks!
I never learned from a man who agreed with me. Heinlein
Last edited by mrmossyone; 12-10-2007 at 12:36 AM..
Quick Links
, BTW from Chicago to Beijing after watching all 6 movies in business class you still have two hours of flying to do yet). That works out to 46 flights a year.
I thought only the people that wanted to take the test would post with their results. Being apolitical myself, I didn't even think it had anything to do with politics. If you get tired of hauling posts off to incarceration, just feel free to close down the entire hot-bed operation. 
It's one thing to disagree or agree on the basis of your own experience with a subject but quite another to adopt someone else's opinions as your own on the basis of who you wish to side with.
Linear Mode
