Register for a FREE GoComics account and get this plus any other comic strip delivered to your Personalized Comic Page, Daily. With a free account you will be able to build a Comic Page filled with the Comics you want to see each day.
With the largest collection of Comics and Editorial Cartoons online there is plenty to choose from. Upgrade to a Comic Genius account (Only $.99/Month) and have unlimited archive access to decades of comics.
Register for a FREE GoComics account and get this or any other comic strip daily emailed daily. Comics and Editorial Cartoons are updated everyday so there is always something new.
With a free account you will receive one comic from your Personalized Comic Page daily. Upgrade to a Comic Genius account (Only $.99/Month) and get all of your comics emailed daily plus receive unlimited archive access to decades of comics.
The Weather is effected by, the strength of the sun, the spin and tilt of the earth and the water cyle.
But the G8 can not cap and trade or tax and trade the plunder of any of that. So Lets go after CO2. Never mind the wet lands put out more CO2 then man ever will. But I guess they have to keep up the show.
Carbon dioxide forms approximately 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere. It is essential to photosynthesis in plants and other photoautotrophs, and is also a prominent greenhouse gas. - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
0.04% - not 1% not 1/2% - a fraction of a fraction and the Chicken Littles want us to believe that we’ll soon be living on Venus ! ! !
Sigh…again I’ll try, although I don’t expect HQ to understand, Right_On and nomad are certainly intelligent enough to do so, however.
From the EPA site:
Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere increased from approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to 382 ppm in 2006 according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Earth Systems Research Laboratory, a 36 percent increase. Almost all of the increase is due to human activities (IPCC, 2007). The current rate of increase in CO2 concentrations is about 1.9 ppmv/year. Present CO2 concentrations are higher than any time in at least the last 650,000 years (IPCC, 2007).
As you see from this data, although the level of CO2 is small (0.038%), the change in CO2 is large (38%) and growing. A rapid rate of change is destabilizing to an ecosystem (and the earth is essentially a closed ecosystem aside from the energy from the sun). The effects are seen in many contexts. I have several times mentioned the change in ocean pH. This has effects on the ability of oceanic organisms to build shells and skeletal elements. The fact that plants need CO2 (and actually so do we) is irrelevant to the question. You can have too much of a good thing. To take an example from my area of expertise, there is a factor know as therapeutic ratio that we consider when designing drugs. You want a drug that is effective at a reasonable concentration but whose undesired side effects are not seen until a much higher concentration. In other words, at low concentration, it’s good for you; at higher concentration it may kill you. That is why we worry about rising CO2.
And there are soooo many senators who even know what pH is. Please, church, do try to look at the science without getting it all tangled up in politics. The data of CO2 change does not come from the IPCC report. In a way, it doesn’t matter where the extra CO2 comes from. If we want to ameliorate its rise, we must act on those sources we can theoretically control.
^ Nonsense. This report isn’t about the opinions of Senators, but the very scientists that were forced to sign onto the IPCC report, and now dispute its findings. You are the one that pointed to that report. You simply will not give any credence to any source that does not reinforce your preconceived view of GW.
And how much “real world” misery (in terms of $, taxes, jobs, lifestyle, etc) are you willing to mandate for your “theoretical control”? Billions? Trillions? Everything and everything because “we have to do something!”?
Well, I guess that depends on how much you wish to avoid the consequences of climate change, doesn’t it? IMO, our lifestyle is already doomed, because we are using more than we are able to produce on a global scale…but I know you do not accept that data either, so it’s pointless to continue.
ViewsAfrica by CartoonArts International
ViewsAsia by CartoonArts International
Comments (10) Jump to Comments Form
4uk4ata said, 4 months ago
No effect? He needs a bigger wand.
harleyquinn
said,
4 months ago
The Weather is effected by, the strength of the sun, the spin and tilt of the earth and the water cyle.
But the G8 can not cap and trade or tax and trade the plunder of any of that. So Lets go after CO2. Never mind the wet lands put out more CO2 then man ever will. But I guess they have to keep up the show.
harleyquinn
said,
4 months ago
You know the funny thing is, if the climate was not changing one way or the other, Then I would be worried.
nomad2112 said, 4 months ago
Carbon dioxide forms approximately 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere. It is essential to photosynthesis in plants and other photoautotrophs, and is also a prominent greenhouse gas. - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
0.04% - not 1% not 1/2% - a fraction of a fraction and the Chicken Littles want us to believe that we’ll soon be living on Venus ! ! !
Right_On said, 4 months ago
CO2 is a bad gas? I know a couple trees that would beg to differ …
fennec said, 4 months ago
Sigh…again I’ll try, although I don’t expect HQ to understand, Right_On and nomad are certainly intelligent enough to do so, however.
From the EPA site:
Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere increased from approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to 382 ppm in 2006 according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Earth Systems Research Laboratory, a 36 percent increase. Almost all of the increase is due to human activities (IPCC, 2007). The current rate of increase in CO2 concentrations is about 1.9 ppmv/year. Present CO2 concentrations are higher than any time in at least the last 650,000 years (IPCC, 2007).
As you see from this data, although the level of CO2 is small (0.038%), the change in CO2 is large (38%) and growing. A rapid rate of change is destabilizing to an ecosystem (and the earth is essentially a closed ecosystem aside from the energy from the sun). The effects are seen in many contexts. I have several times mentioned the change in ocean pH. This has effects on the ability of oceanic organisms to build shells and skeletal elements. The fact that plants need CO2 (and actually so do we) is irrelevant to the question. You can have too much of a good thing. To take an example from my area of expertise, there is a factor know as therapeutic ratio that we consider when designing drugs. You want a drug that is effective at a reasonable concentration but whose undesired side effects are not seen until a much higher concentration. In other words, at low concentration, it’s good for you; at higher concentration it may kill you. That is why we worry about rising CO2.
churchillwasright said, 4 months ago
US Senate Report disputes IPCC Report:
http://tinyurl.com/2hmrer
fennec said, 4 months ago
And there are soooo many senators who even know what pH is. Please, church, do try to look at the science without getting it all tangled up in politics. The data of CO2 change does not come from the IPCC report. In a way, it doesn’t matter where the extra CO2 comes from. If we want to ameliorate its rise, we must act on those sources we can theoretically control.
churchillwasright said, 4 months ago
^ Nonsense. This report isn’t about the opinions of Senators, but the very scientists that were forced to sign onto the IPCC report, and now dispute its findings. You are the one that pointed to that report. You simply will not give any credence to any source that does not reinforce your preconceived view of GW.
And how much “real world” misery (in terms of $, taxes, jobs, lifestyle, etc) are you willing to mandate for your “theoretical control”? Billions? Trillions? Everything and everything because “we have to do something!”?
fennec said, 4 months ago
Well, I guess that depends on how much you wish to avoid the consequences of climate change, doesn’t it? IMO, our lifestyle is already doomed, because we are using more than we are able to produce on a global scale…but I know you do not accept that data either, so it’s pointless to continue.