+ Water temp !!

[jack1747]

I wonder how much planted aquarium owners injecting co2 24x7x365 affect things? 

[crabbymike17]

This one only takes 32 seconds.  

LOL.  How many times should I repeat that it's unwise to believe a politian that knows virtually nothing about science.  Please don't tell me you would service your boat or auto by someone utterly unskilled in those areas.  I'm sending anyone that wants a copy of a science journal a free subscription.  They take some prerequisites to understand for someone uneducated in the topics discussed.  I hope none of you teach your children to believe what politicians say.  A smart person questions the answers and finds the facts.    Your safe Jack.  I'm sure it's a nice aquarium with no less danger than smoking a pack of cigarettes per day   

[Steve]

This one only takes 32 seconds.  

That's it, you win, I'm now 100% convinced that global warming is a hoax because Paul Broun said so. End of debate.

[Wallco99]

That's it, you win, I'm now 100% convinced that global warming is a hoax because Paul Broun said so. End of debate.

Along with thousands of other scientists who stand on the other side of the issue as well. Simply quoting scientists who believe the same thing as you doesn't make it true either. Fact is, there are numbers of scientists on both sides of the issue. Meaning none of it is fact, it's all theory. Many say global warming is nonsense and a political scare tactic, while others say it is real. But you won't hear that from the media, because it doesn't fit their agenda. They want you to believe that "ALL" scientists say this, but they don't. If you wish to believe it great, but those who don't buy into it should not be ridiculed, dismissed, and imposed with regulations based on scientific theories that can't even be agreed on by all scientists. And don't give me the "97% of scientists" stat that climate people like to throw out there, because that number is completely bogus, and there are many articles and books explaining as to why.

[JimM]

We ARE an opinionated bunch, aren't we? I say that as a good thing!

Global warming obviously isn't a hoax. In this entire debate it's the only verified and verifiable fact. (Now, I need to throw a little monkey wrench into that acknowledgement. The warming is a fact if you only consider the last 100 or so years. If you take the last, say, 1000 years you wouldn't be alarmed at all. Sometimes we need to put things into perspective)

The two major debates are 1) the contribution of human activity to the warming and 2) what, if anything, should be done about it (and by whom).

I did a dopey calculation years ago just to get a rise out of folks and make the case that we ARE contributing to the issue, but not enough to turn any economy upside down. Assumptions: The Earth has warmed about 1.4 degrees. The normal CO2 levels are about 250 ppm and humans have raised it to about 400 ppm. All CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect. The CO2 contribution to the greenhouse effect is about 5%. The greenhouse effect is the warming mechanism. The dopey formula is pretty simple

1.4 degrees * .05 * (150/400) = .026 degrees ... I'm smiling as I write this because I know some heads are exploding. According to this little exercise, the effect of humans on the global temperature increase is less than 3 one hundredths of a degree. I better stop for today. A similar formula could be applied to the rise of the oceans, but that would be called "inciting". The formula could be adjusted to distinguish the US CO2 from the rest of the world, but that could also be called "inciting".

[Steve]

Along with thousands of other scientists who stand on the other side of the issue as well. Simply quoting scientists who believe the same thing as you doesn't make it true either. Fact is, there are numbers of scientists on both sides of the issue. Meaning none of it is fact, it's all theory. Many say global warming is nonsense and a political scare tactic, while others say it is real. But you won't hear that from the media, because it doesn't fit their agenda. They want you to believe that "ALL" scientists say this, but they don't. If you wish to believe it great, but those who don't buy into it should not be ridiculed, dismissed, and imposed with regulations based on scientific theories that can't even be agreed on by all scientists. And don't give me the "97% of scientists" stat that climate people like to throw out there, because that number is completely bogus, and there are many articles and books explaining as to why.

I have said nothing political and I have have no agenda. I'm just reporting data obtained by scientists using the best methods that we have today. It's a fact that CO2 levels had been relatively stable for the past 800,000 years (ice core samples have proven that beyond a reasonable doubt). It's also a fact that CO2 levels have spiked to nearly double that norm in the past 100 years with no known natural explanation. That's pretty much it. CO2 levels ARE now increasing at a steady rate and Earth's global (average) temperature is increasing.

Now, is this caused by humans? Well, automobiles, jet aircraft, coal-burning power plants, factories, massive deforestation, huge human population, etc. didn't really exist 200 years ago when things were normal. So, it's almost certainly a "human" event. But, whatever, that's not the point. The point is that it's happening. And we should probably try to take REASONABLE steps to try and reverse that trend.

So, let me ask you a question. When nitrogen and phosphorus levels started increasing in the Chesapeake Bay, did anyone accuse the "scientists" of fudging the numbers? No, because everyone could see that the water was in distress, eelgrasses were disappearing, fish were dying. Now, were the nitrogen/phosphorus levels due to man-made events (chicken farm waste, agricultural runoff, lawn fertilizer, etc.) or was it natural and out of our hands? I think you know the answer to that question.

So why the severe skepticism when it comes to CO2 and our atmosphere? Is it because you can't see CO2 with your own eyes? Is it because it's so gradual that you don't think it's true?

I'm done with this conversation. It's one thing to have a healthy debate, but I've provided evidence, now you're supposed to provide your own evidence to counter my argument. Show me a graph that shows CO2 levels being the same for the past 100 years. Show me data from the other group of scientists disproving my claim. I'm not going to accept your opinion, Paul Broun's opinion, or what the media says.

With that said, it's apparent that there is no counter-evidence, and your whole argument consists of some conspiracy theory where scientists are greedy and want to fool everyone so they'll get rich.

I've said what I can and hope that at least a few lurkers here have actually taken the time to watch the videos that I shared and to do some of their own investigative research into this matter.
 

[Wallco99]

I have said nothing political and I have have no agenda. I'm just reporting data obtained by scientists using the best methods that we have today. It's a fact that CO2 levels had been relatively stable for the past 800,000 years (ice core samples have proven that beyond a reasonable doubt). It's also a fact that CO2 levels have spiked to nearly double that norm in the past 100 years with no known natural explanation. That's pretty much it. CO2 levels ARE now increasing at a steady rate and Earth's global (average) temperature is increasing.

Now, is this caused by humans? Well, automobiles, jet aircraft, coal-burning power plants, factories, massive deforestation, huge human population, etc. didn't really exist 200 years ago when things were normal. So, it's almost certainly a "human" event. But, whatever, that's not the point. The point is that it's happening. And we should probably try to take REASONABLE steps to try and reverse that trend.

So, let me ask you a question. When nitrogen and phosphorus levels started increasing in the Chesapeake Bay, did anyone accuse the "scientists" of fudging the numbers? No, because everyone could see that the water was in distress, eelgrasses were disappearing, fish were dying. Now, were the nitrogen/phosphorus levels due to man-made events (chicken farm waste, agricultural runoff, lawn fertilizer, etc.) or was it natural and out of our hands? I think you know the answer to that question.

So why the severe skepticism when it comes to CO2 and our atmosphere? Is it because you can't see CO2 with your own eyes? Is it because it's so gradual that you don't think it's true?

I'm done with this conversation. It's one thing to have a healthy debate, but I've provided evidence, now you're supposed to provide your own evidence to counter my argument. Show me a graph that shows CO2 levels being the same for the past 100 years. Show me data from the other group of scientists disproving my claim. I'm not going to accept your opinion, Paul Broun's opinion, or what the media says.

With that said, it's apparent that there is no counter-evidence, and your whole argument consists of some conspiracy theory where scientists are greedy and want to fool everyone so they'll get rich.

I've said what I can and hope that at least a few lurkers here have actually taken the time to watch the videos that I shared and to do some of their own investigative research into this matter.
 

I didn't specifically mean you. Just climate advocates in general. Changing the characteristics of a body of water is a lot different than trying to alter CO2 levels on a whole planet. Surrounding communities of the body of water can be regulated from polluting it a lot easier than attempting to get everyone on Earth to jump on board this "give everything up" policy. It's just not going to happen. As I said before, even if it is a cause, we as Americans can get down to emitting 0% total carbon, and it won't register a blip on your CO2 chart, since the other 98.24% of the world doesn't have to follow our policies. Meanwhile, we are supposed to foot the whole bill, eat only grass, and walk to Hawaii. I think not. I love how differing opinions are always referred to as "conspiracy". How about it's not a conspiracy, I'm just not buying what you're selling?

[Steve]

I didn't specifically mean you. Just climate advocates in general.

And you're not a climate advocate?

If you walked outside every day and couldn't see your car parked in the driveway because of heavy smog, you'd just shrug it off as being a natural thing? What if Paul Broun told you that smog was good and that other scientists said not to worry?

The only difference here is that you can see smog.  

What if that smog were on a global scale? Still not worth the attempt to clean it up?

[Wallco99]

And you're not a climate advocate?

If you walked outside every day and couldn't see your car parked in the driveway because of heavy smog, you'd just shrug it off as being a natural thing? What if Paul Broun told you that smog was a natural thing and that other scientists said not to worry?

The only difference here is that you can see smog.  

According to you, if scientists say it then it's true.  Everyone is concerned about climate. But the radicalness of what some says needs to be done is just ridiculous. Especially when there are scientists on both sides of the "man caused it" argument.

[Steve]

According to you, if scientists say it then it's true.   Everyone is concerned about climate. But the radicalness of what some says needs to be done is just ridiculous. Especially when there are scientists on both sides of the "man caused it" argument.

Have you been reading my posts? I specifically stated multiple times that it doesn't matter what's causing it.

Anyway, I'm done here, I have nothing else to say.

[crabbymike17]

According to you, if scientists say it then it's true.  Everyone is concerned about climate. But the radicalness of what some says needs to be done is just ridiculous. Especially when there are scientists on both sides of the "man caused it" argument.

I may have subtly suggested it before, go suck on your tailpipe and let me know how you feel in a week.  Moreso, while you're not feeling so good, let me know how you think this contributes to the atmosphere.   There are no REAL scientist that support the flip side of data and facts, unless they are paid by the corporations to raise doubt in support of bigger profits.  And please tell me why I'm even responding.  Try a few simple tests today and let me know the impact.  Inhale a can of hairspray, suck on a tailpipe, drink sewer water, pour red-devil turpentine in your eye, inhale a helium balloon to alter your voice, and then let me know around what year the industrial revolution began?  When you're relaxed, read a copy of science journal, if you can still see straight while spellchecking.  LOL.  A huge percentage of this data comes from sources (like NASA) by individuals that spend a lifetime of service, study and commitment to a better world.  These professionals are paid by the government, not by politicians or companies.  Unfortunately, I have a slight bias toward the facts of science.  I'm now a member of the forum for my love of crabbing not science or politics.        

[Mikie]

I think the best description is by George Carlin.!

Google   "George Carlin - Saving The Planet"  on You Tube. Only 8 minutes (a little blue language for the kiddies to avoid).

[squidspeak]

According to you, if scientists say it then it's true.   Everyone is concerned about climate. But the radicalness of what some says needs to be done is just ridiculous. Especially when there are scientists on both sides of the "man caused it" argument.

Ohhhh no, not the scientists again. The few scientists that are on the wrong side of history mostly work
for the petro-chem , fossil fuel, factory farm industry that has willing people (sheep) to believe what they say. I love the
analogy of go suck on a tailpipe and see how you feel, well on a larger scale that is what Humans, Mankind have
been doing to the planet.

[Wallco99]

Ohhhh no, not the scientists again. The few scientists that are on the wrong side of history mostly work
for the petro-chem , fossil fuel, factory farm industry that has willing people (sheep) to believe what they say. I love the
analogy of go suck on a tailpipe and see how you feel, well on a larger scale that is what Humans, Mankind have
been doing to the planet.

You mean kind of like CNN and the media does to their "flock"?   

[shedking]

Well I expect to see a lot of tail pipe suckers crabbing out of sail and rowboats this year to do their part to save the world. I’m sure nasa used solar panels and sails to get satellites into orbit and moon rovers up. I’m a bit put off by being told my boat, car, truck, etc is polluting the earth and causing ruination by people flying in private jets to speak about such atrocities.

[crabbymike17]

I think the best description is by George Carlin.!

Google   "George Carlin - Saving The Planet"  on You Tube. Only 8 minutes (a little blue language for the kiddies to avoid).

That video, and I've watched it many times over the years, is extremely hilarious!  It's great entertainment delivered by a truly brilliant comedian.  George Carlin's comedic advise on the planet simply reminds me of how R.J. Reynolds scientists claimed for many years that cigarette smoking is safe and had no impact on cancer and heart disease.  Only fools believed what the big tobacco scientists said.  It took a while for people to catch on to the facts which were no joke.  And perhaps you've lost family and friends to cancer also, which is a sad affair.   I'm a fan of the bureau of tobacco, firearms and alcohol.  I won't be crabbing with solar power, sails or electric motors, I'm not a tree hugger type by far, I've been called out for poaching deer, LOL.  I enjoy the smell of petro while smoking a nice Cuban or spitting tobacco, sipping on some alcohol to ease my pain, while working the bay and blasting some music.  On occasion I think to myself, "I wonder if any of you are doing any good today?"  I know the risks, I accept the consequences.  Funny story, I might get a common cold once every two years, if that.  I go to my Dr. a few years back when I was suffering a flu or something and coughing terribly.  My doctor had just returned from Cuba and knew I liked Cuban cigars.  He hands me a script for something to fight the flu and a Cuban cigar?  LOL. 

[squidspeak]

You mean kind of like CNN and the media does to their "flock"?   

Touche ' nobody is perfect baaaa. Rick I don't know if I spelled that first word right. I am guilty of watching
the news, any news and I decide because I am a semi stable genius who is telling part of the truth .Unfortunetly
 some people believe stories about the school shooting in SAndyhook did not happen and stories about pizza gate.
Those sheep I don't herd with, do you have an Alex Jones poster?

[Wallco99]

Touche ' nobody is perfect baaaa. Rick I don't know if I spelled that first word right. I am guilty of watching
the news, any news and I decide because I am a semi stable genius who is telling part of the truth .Unfortunetly
 some people believe stories about the school shooting in SAndyhook did not happen and stories about pizza gate.
Those sheep I don't herd with, do you have an Alex Jones poster?

No. Not a fan of the extreme people on either side.

[shedking]

Touche ' nobody is perfect baaaa. Rick I don't know if I spelled that first word right. I am guilty of watching
the news, any news and I decide because I am a semi stable genius who is telling part of the truth .Unfortunetly
 some people believe stories about the school shooting in SAndyhook did not happen and stories about pizza gate.
Those sheep I don't herd with, do you have an Alex Jones poster?

He did wear a tinfoil hat when we went crabbing once. 🤔 not so sure 

[Wallco99]

He did wear a tinfoil hat when we went crabbing once. 🤔 not so sure 

If you remember correctly, that was because you couldn't get you boat running. So I put on the hat to try gather some energy from the sun to get it started. And if my memory serves me, it worked!