grataku said:
the last house I looked at cost close to a million and carried a annual assessment of over $14K.
That's in CT, a state with considerably lower taxes than NY.
It is probably true that Europeans live financially not as well off as the americans but they don't stress out nearly as much. I think they have a better work / life balance.
I am just not as sure if that's my cup of the tea tho.
roibm said:
I think your lack of training shows here.
Yes, the level of co2 can be the highest ever. But that' irrelevant. For your assertion to work, you need to prove that there is too much co2, which could happen even at levels lower than its current level.
In fact, high levels of co2 may not be sufficient to cause damages. You need to prove that it is TOO MUCH.
It looks to me that the Europeans need to reform their education systems (or have logic 101 mandatory in their schools),
.Not to sound condescending to you but you do need to figure out what you are talking about and be on the point. I mean if you have trouble on simple things like this, how can we expect you to save the world?
jean-paul said:
that's probably true.
however, the US tax system isn't exactly charity-like. my take home pay is about 45 cents on a dollar. and if you factor in property taxes that I have to pay and capital gains taxes, I bet you that my take-home pay is in the 30 cents range. And that's after Bush's tax cut.
There was a commercial I heard a while ago that said an average american works for the government until May or June and then for the banks until Christmas. It is only after that s/he works for himself/ herself and the family.
Pretty bad, isn't it?
millwood said:I think your lack of training shows here.
Yes, the level of co2 can be the highest ever. But that' irrelevant. For your assertion to work, you need to prove that there is too much co2, which could happen even at levels lower than its current level.
In fact, high levels of co2 may not be sufficient to cause damages. You need to prove that it is TOO MUCH.
It looks to me that the Europeans need to reform their education systems (or have logic 101 mandatory in their schools),
Not to sound condescending to you but you do need to figure out what you are talking about and be on the point. I mean if you have trouble on simple things like this, how can we expect you to save the world?
Too understand if the CO2 level in the atmosphere is too high(meaning too much) one should understand what is the use of CO2. Then simply apply the general formula of too much: what is too much? Too much is when something is saturated with something else, and that something else may have nasty effects consequently.
A very simple example: one is hungry, so one eats. the more one eats the better one feels... up to a level. that would be the saturation level. when one crosses the saturation level, the feeling is not of pleasure anymore, and it start going towards sick feeling. the more you eat the sicker the feeling. side effects: getting fat, eventually more powerful, taking the food from others that need it.
It is somehow the same regarding CO2. The more CO2 the better for trees and plants in general. Up to a level.
As we all know the forests areal was greatly reduced in the last milenias, especialy in the last centuries.
The image below ilustrates "Deforested versus Remaining Forested Over Last 8,000 Years"
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
(source: http://forests.org/world/)
Some other interesting forest facts:
- Half of the forests that originally covered 46% of the Earth's land surface are gone. Only one-fifth of the Earth's original forests remain pristine and undisturbed.
- Global wood consumption is projected to double over the next 30 years.
- Americans use 27% of the wood commercially harvested worldwide, although only 5% of the world's population lives in the U.S. Each U.S. citizen consumes on average approximately 75 cubic meters of solid wood every year -- about one ancient tree.
(source: http://www.nrdc.org/land/forests/fforestf.asp)
Now, on CO2:
"The study suggests that carbon sequestration by plants and soils, one major strategy for slowing global warming, may be less effective than has been estimated. Some scientists and policy makers have been hopeful that more CO2 in the atmosphere would lead to enhanced plant productivity, enhanced plant productivity would take more CO2 out of the air, and the CO2 would be stored or sequestered in the plants."
(source: http://forests.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=18349)
" "To achieve stabilization at a two degree Celsius warming, we would need to bring the equivalent of a large carbon-emission-free power plant into production somewhere in the world every day for the next 50 years," Jain said. "
(source: http://forests.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=21336)
"The result: the CO2-doped pines shot up -- to start with. For the first three years, their growth was 34 percent more than normal pines in the adjoining area. But growth then plunged over the next four years, to just six percent more per year than the other pines."
(source: http://forests.org/archive/general/trplnode.htm)
Also see:
http://forests.org/archive/general/casinskh.htm
http://forests.org/archive/general/trmaynot.htm
http://forests.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=29437
"The highest layers of the Earth's atmosphere are cooling and contracting, most likely in response to increasing levels of greenhouse gases, according to a new study by scientists at the Naval Research Laboratory. This contraction could result in longer orbital lifetimes for both satellites and hazardous space debris.
In a paper that will appear in the Journal of Geophysical Research - Space Physics, Dr. John Emmert and his colleagues, Drs. Michael Picone, Judith Lean, and Stephen Knowles, report that the average density of the thermosphere has decreased by about 10% during the past 35 years."
(source: http://www.scienceblog.com/community/article2249.html)
"Carbon dioxide (CO2) disgorged by fossil fuels is silently causing a dramatic change in the composition of tree species in the Amazonian forest, the world's most precious wildlife haven, a study says."
(source: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20040308/amazon.html)
"The Swiss study shows that, warming or not, too much CO2 may do a lot of harm."
(source: http://ewradio.org/program.aspx?ProgramID=2331)
"The problem is when human activity results in the release of too much CO2 and it begins to build up in the atmosphere. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has grown by about 30 percent over the past several hundred years. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 stands currently at 360 parts per million -- the highest it has been in 400,000 years."
(source: http://climate.wri.org/topic_keyissues_text.cfm?cid=1276)
And now, why I believe there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere:
- ever since there are humans on this planet there was never such a high leve of CO2 in the air.
- look at the picture below...
... what you see? a continuously rising level of CO2 concentration in the air. Now, if this would be "an era of low doses of co2" how do you explain the CO2 built-up in the atmosphere? It is not the atmosphere itself that eats CO2, it is the green layer on the ground that eats it. But as you saw, the green layer is not growing, it is decreasing. So if the green layer is decreasing, it couln't possibly eat more. As scientists have proven(a link above), the trees don't eat a constant level of CO2. And even if they would eat a constant level, we don't put a constant amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. And we never did.
The graph showing the level of CO2 within the last decades is proving(alone) that the green layer on the ground is not suffering from CO2, so this couln't possibly be a low dose of CO2 era.
Considering that there was never such a high level of CO2 in the air, is is safe to assume that there realy is too much CO2 in the atmosphere.
The argument of many agaist the greenhouse effect is that if the temp will rise by several degrees(2-4) there wouldn't be such a big problem since the earthalready passed through such high temps before. I do not deny this, but ask the benelux peoples, among many others which will be affected by the rising level of oceans what they think about it.
If you look again at the graph below:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
you will see that each CO2 level spike was shortly followed by a dramatic temp spike. Is it safe to asume that the same will happen again? I see no reason why not. The only difference being that the actual CO2 spike is the highest of all. I think it is safe to asume that the temp spike will be proportional.
roibm said:And now, why I believe there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere:
- ever since there are humans on this planet there was never such a high leve of CO2 in the air.
- look at the picture below...
... what you see? a continuously rising level of CO2 concentration in the air.
If I am paid every second I spent teaching here, I would be a millionaire by now,
.You can have very high levels of something (say money or co2). But you don't necessarily have too much of that something (say money, or co2).
All you have proven is that the level of co2 is arising. I am not disputing that. But that all by itself doesn't mean we have too much co2.
For example, your income has been risen since your infant days and your last paycheck is the highest ever you have earned. Should I then conclude that you have too much money?
it is painful having to explain something this rudimentory.
BTW, writting in a concise manner also helps you get your messages across. All you have written can really be condensed in a couple of sentences and there is no need to overload your readers (I was told that people on average have 5 seconds to understand you. so try to write as little as you can - I know, it is much tougher to write less than to write more).
millwood said:
If I am paid every second I spent teaching here, I would be a millionaire by now,
You can have very high levels of something (say money or co2). But you don't necessarily have too much of that something (say money, or co2).
All you have proven is that the level of co2 is arising. I am not disputing that. But that all by itself doesn't mean we have too much co2.
For example, your income has been risen since your infant days and your last paycheck is the highest ever you have earned. Should I then conclude that you have too much money?
it is painful having to explain something this rudimentory.
BTW, writting in a concise manner also helps you get your messages across. All you have written can really be condensed in a couple of sentences and there is no need to overload your readers (I was told that people on average have 5 seconds to understand you. so try to write as little as you can - I know, it is much tougher to write less than to write more).
Whatever dear, whatever. You are hopeless.
(I hope you read that in less than 5 secs...)
The co2 levels in your charts are 300 parts per million. That's .03%. And they've only risen 20%. I may be inclined to worry of they were 100,000 ppm and increasing 20% in 40 years. I would say that we could safly elevate the current concentration 100 fold without the earth imploding and our flesh melting off. We may raise the average temp by 10 deg, but that would be due to the huge amount of energy released to make that much CO2.
Not only does my car get less that 10 mpg, I drive it 150 miles per day on average.
Fear not Chicken Little, The sky is not falling.
Not only does my car get less that 10 mpg, I drive it 150 miles per day on average.
Fear not Chicken Little, The sky is not falling.
Brian Donaldson said:
Now someone please tell me, how on earth could someone reason with this guy?
100kppm? when the maximum ever was 300ppm?
If there really is someone that shows off his/her lack of education in this very forum, that clearly must be the user Brian Donaldson.
(SY, censor again? look above then...)
Be proud of yourself Brian. There are not many like you on this world(at least you are the only one I know of)
Oh, you already said it does less than 10mpg, so you must be really proud of yourself.
Mods, I see no quotes on the last sentence.
roibm said:
Now someone please tell me, how on earth could someone reason with this guy?
well, roibm, the burden of proof is actually on you. You have asserted many times that the co2 levels are too high but you have never produced one piece of evidence explaining why it is too high (again, just being the highest doesn't mean it is too high). maybe you should start to reason a little bit.
roibm said:
there is nothing wrong with that sentence. Don't call for moderators just because people disagree with you. Reason your way out.