CO2 is our friend

[jc456]

Do you think 280-300 ppm isn't enough to accomplish that task?

I have no idea, studies show the more the better for plant life. Growing food to consume. Why is it you're afraid of CO2 so much? I see you can't tell us what the problem is it presents.

 

[Crick]

A Graphical History of Atmospheric CO2 Levels Over Time | Earth.Org

As the most abundant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, CO2 levels have varied widely over the course of the Earth’s 4.54 billion year history.

earth.org

If humans were to stop producing CO2, what do you think would eventually happen to the planet's CO2 levels? What does this graph make you think might happen? I think it says that CO2 will drop back down to 280-300 ppm. Is there some reason to think that humans would somehow drive it lower? No, there isn't. Is there some reason to fear that humans might do so by accident? No, there isn't. So, why does the OP, whose title says CO2 is our friend, make no other argument except to fearmonger the unwarranted idea that humans might reduce CO2 so low that plant life would die off? Because he's just making this crap up.

 

[toobfreak]

CO2 is our friend​

DARN TOOTIN'. I've been reading your stuff, Elektra, and you have been posting a lot of good stuff.

Carbon is everything, we need carbon, we are carbon, most everything good is carbon, in all its many forms.

We'd be shit outta luck without it.

 

[EMH]

Carbon is in most everything

Co2 does NOTHING regarding "warming" the atmosphere, which is where it is.... in the atmosphere, not under Antarctic ice or 3 miles under the oceans...

 

[EMH]

what do you think would eventually happen to the planet's CO2 levels?

WHO CARES since Co2 does NOTHING.

Sincerely,

highly correlated satellite and balloon data showing precisely NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE despite rising Co2

 

[jc456]

Co2 does NOTHING regarding "warming" the atmosphere, which is where it is.... in the atmosphere, not under Antarctic ice or 3 miles under the oceans...

Actually, it is under the ice sheet

 

[EMH]

Actually, it is under the ice sheet

LOL!!!

and IN THE ICE SHEET... how we get the data from ice cores.

But the CLAIM, the "THEORY," is that

INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC Co2 WARMS THE ATMOSPHERE

and the only real data on that subject completely refuted it...

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling

 

[jc456]

LOL!!!

and IN THE ICE SHEET... how we get the data from ice cores.

But the CLAIM, the "THEORY," is that

INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC Co2 WARMS THE ATMOSPHERE

and the only real data on that subject completely refuted it...

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling

Well there’s absolutely no evidence of warming anything. It’s actually a waste of time to argue with a warmer. Their inability to rationalize reality is wiped from their brains

 

[elektra]

Well there’s absolutely no evidence of warming anything. It’s actually a waste of time to argue with a warmer. Their inability to rationalize reality is wiped from their brains

That is so true, why is it that it is the Democrat party that is so, obstinate.

 

[Crick]

Between JC456, Elektra, EMH, toobfreak and myself, there is only one poster whose views here align with mainstream science. And there name is not JC456, Elektra, EMH or toobfreak.

 

[elektra]

Between JC456, Elektra, EMH, toobfreak and myself, there is only one poster whose views here align with mainstream science. And there name is not JC456, Elektra, EMH or toobfreak.

Science? CO2 is too thin in the atmosphere to do what the IPCC says it does. I would say scientists, but I doubt anything but a tiny minority of scientists agree that CO2 is a problem.

After all, your claim, supported by "surveys", that survey the surveys that looked at titles of a small percentage of published papers does not make science or tell us that CO2 at this historically low level is a problem.

 

[elektra]

Between JC456, Elektra, EMH, toobfreak and myself, there is only one poster whose views here align with mainstream science. And there name is not JC456, Elektra, EMH or toobfreak.

crick, I seen posts of yours, in your threads, warning and chastising others to stay on topic, so what are doing in my thread trolling.

crick is a lousy low life hypocrite, crick proves as such

 

[elektra]

Crick You like pretty colored pages. Crick, show us you are mr science and explain to everyone what this means.

 

[Crick]

Crick You like pretty colored pages. Crick, show us you are mr science and explain to everyone what this means.

View attachment 896066

It looks like an unsourced graph of "Flux to Space and Z(C), in Wm^-2 vs CO2 Concentration in ppm from the pro-fossil fuel CO2 Coalition. This would obviously be an effort to show the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and warming. Were you having trouble reading the labels?

This isn't science, its public relations.

From the Wikipdia article about the CO2 Coalition

History​

The CO2 Coalition is a successor to the George C. Marshall Institute, a think tank focusing on defense and climate issues which closed in 2015. William O'Keefe, a chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute and former CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, continued as CEO of the CO2 Coalition. William Happer, an emeritus professor of physics known for disagreeing with the consensus on climate change, was another CO2 Coalition founder from the Marshall Institute. Happer said the association with climate contrarianism had negatively affected Marshall Institute funding, viz: "Many foundations that would normally have supported defense would not do it because of the Marshall name being associated with climate". The defense activities of the Marshall Institute were moved to the Center for Strategic and International Studies[3][4][5]​

​

In its first four years, the CO2 Coalition received over $1 million in contributions from foundations that support conservative causes and from energy industry officials.[4]​

​

In 2023, John Clauser joined the board of the CO2 Coalition.[6][7]​

​

So, it looks as if CO2 Coalition was split off the Marshall Institute because their disingenuous and faulty climate science was hurting donations. But it's plenty good for you.

 

[Crick]

Crick You like pretty colored pages. Crick, show us you are mr science and explain to everyone what this means.

View attachment 896066

I don't suppose you've ever noticed, but data graphs from scientific journals don't look pretty, like this one, and there is a reason for that, that you don't seem to understand.

The effort to establish climate sensitivity fully takes into account the logarithmic relationship between CO2 concentration and warming. These data do not refute the work of the IPCC, they verify it.

 

[elektra]

I don't suppose you've ever noticed, but data graphs from scientific journals don't look pretty, like this one, and there is a reason for that, that you don't seem to understand.

The effort to establish climate sensitivity fully takes into account the logarithmic relationship between CO2 concentration and warming. These data do not refute the work of the IPCC, they verify it.

It looks like an unsourced graph of "Flux to Space and Z(C), in Wm^-2 vs CO2 Concentration in ppm from the pro-fossil fuel CO2 Coalition. This would obviously be an effort to show the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and warming. Were you having trouble reading the labels?

This isn't science, its public relations.

From the Wikipdia article about the CO2 Coalition

History​

The CO2 Coalition is a successor to the George C. Marshall Institute, a think tank focusing on defense and climate issues which closed in 2015. William O'Keefe, a chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute and former CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, continued as CEO of the CO2 Coalition. William Happer, an emeritus professor of physics known for disagreeing with the consensus on climate change, was another CO2 Coalition founder from the Marshall Institute. Happer said the association with climate contrarianism had negatively affected Marshall Institute funding, viz: "Many foundations that would normally have supported defense would not do it because of the Marshall name being associated with climate". The defense activities of the Marshall Institute were moved to the Center for Strategic and International Studies[3][4][5]​

​

In its first four years, the CO2 Coalition received over $1 million in contributions from foundations that support conservative causes and from energy industry officials.[4]​

​

In 2023, John Clauser joined the board of the CO2 Coalition.[6][7]​

​

So, it looks as if CO2 Coalition was split off the Marshall Institute because their disingenuous and faulty climate science was hurting donations. But it's plenty good for you.

Crick, as I said, you have no idea what the fuck is going on.

You can not explain what a simple graph means

crick, you are a google link, no more, non-thinking parrot, monkey see, monkey do

 

[Robert W]

We were talking about CO2 levels. Is there some reason you don't want to talk any more about CO2 levels?

Take us back to when you were not fearful of CO2. Before a person got you so scared now you want to keep talking about carbon dioxide the gas? What spooked you? Who did it to you?

 

[Crick]

Crick, as I said, you have no idea what the fuck is going on.

You can not explain what a simple graph means

crick, you are a google link, no more, non-thinking parrot, monkey see, monkey do

Since you claim I got it all wrong, Is there some reason you have not provided a different explanation for what that graph is showing?

For instance, we could simply go to the source [ The warming effect of each molecule of CO2 declines as its concentration increases - CO2 Coalition ] and see what they have to say.

Climate scientists have determined, and both sides agree, that the warming effect of each molecule of CO2 decreases significantly (logarithmically) as its concentration increases. This is one reason why there was no runaway greenhouse warming when the concentration of CO2 was approaching 20 times that of today. This inconvenient fact, important though it is, is kept very well hidden and is rarely mentioned, for it undermines the theory of future catastrophic climate change. Diminishing returns apply.​

A more detailed description of the chart for the physics aficionados is provided here by Dr. William Happer:​

“The blue curve shows how the thermal radiation flux Z(C) from Earth to space changes with the concentration C of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. This example is for a temperate, summertime latitude. C is measured in parts per million (ppm) of all atmospheric molecules. At the current value of the CO2 concentration, about C = 400 ppm, the flux is Z(400 ppm) = 277 Watts per square meter (W/m^2). If all the CO2 could be removed from Earth’s atmosphere, so C = 0, but there were no changes in the concentrations of the remaining greenhouse gases (water vapor, ozone, methane and nitrous oxide) and no changes in the atmospheric temperature profile, the flux would be larger, Z (0 ppm) = 307 Watts (W/m^2), shown by the blue dot on the vertical axis of the graph. Adding the greenhouse gas CO2 diminishes the flux to space, very rapidly for the first few parts per million of CO2, as one can see from the blue curve. But as more CO2 is added a law of diminishing returns comes into play. The blue curve is almost flat for current concentrations of CO2, so the greenhouse effect is very insensitive to changes in CO2 concentrations. In the jargon of radiative transfer, the greenhouse effect is said to be “saturated.”​

The vertical red lines show the decrease of flux to space caused by successive increases of the CO2 concentration C by 50 ppm increments. The increments are so small that they need to be multiplied by a factor of 100 to be clearly visible on the graph. Except for concentrations C that are almost zero, every doubling of CO2 concentrations decreases the radiation to space by 3 W. For example, the first red bar show that increasing C from 50 ppm to 100 ppm decreases the radiation to space by 300/100 W/m^2 = 3 W/m^2.”​

​

Source(s): Wijngaarden-Happer 2020, Dependence of Earth's Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases​

Source(s): Happer 2021 Personal Communications​

So, dear Elektra, what is it you think I got wrong?

 

[elektra]

Since you claim I got it all wrong, Is there some reason you have not provided a different explanation for what that graph is showing?

For instance, we could simply go to the source [ The warming effect of each molecule of CO2 declines as its concentration increases - CO2 Coalition ] and see what they have to say.

Climate scientists have determined, and both sides agree, that the warming effect of each molecule of CO2 decreases significantly (logarithmically) as its concentration increases. This is one reason why there was no runaway greenhouse warming when the concentration of CO2 was approaching 20 times that of today. This inconvenient fact, important though it is, is kept very well hidden and is rarely mentioned, for it undermines the theory of future catastrophic climate change. Diminishing returns apply.​

A more detailed description of the chart for the physics aficionados is provided here by Dr. William Happer:​

“The blue curve shows how the thermal radiation flux Z(C) from Earth to space changes with the concentration C of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. This example is for a temperate, summertime latitude. C is measured in parts per million (ppm) of all atmospheric molecules. At the current value of the CO2 concentration, about C = 400 ppm, the flux is Z(400 ppm) = 277 Watts per square meter (W/m^2). If all the CO2 could be removed from Earth’s atmosphere, so C = 0, but there were no changes in the concentrations of the remaining greenhouse gases (water vapor, ozone, methane and nitrous oxide) and no changes in the atmospheric temperature profile, the flux would be larger, Z (0 ppm) = 307 Watts (W/m^2), shown by the blue dot on the vertical axis of the graph. Adding the greenhouse gas CO2 diminishes the flux to space, very rapidly for the first few parts per million of CO2, as one can see from the blue curve. But as more CO2 is added a law of diminishing returns comes into play. The blue curve is almost flat for current concentrations of CO2, so the greenhouse effect is very insensitive to changes in CO2 concentrations. In the jargon of radiative transfer, the greenhouse effect is said to be “saturated.”​

The vertical red lines show the decrease of flux to space caused by successive increases of the CO2 concentration C by 50 ppm increments. The increments are so small that they need to be multiplied by a factor of 100 to be clearly visible on the graph. Except for concentrations C that are almost zero, every doubling of CO2 concentrations decreases the radiation to space by 3 W. For example, the first red bar show that increasing C from 50 ppm to 100 ppm decreases the radiation to space by 300/100 W/m^2 = 3 W/m^2.”​

​

Source(s): Wijngaarden-Happer 2020, Dependence of Earth's Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases​

Source(s): Happer 2021 Personal Communications​

So, dear Elektra, what is it you think I got wrong?

you could not answer without going to the site and seeing what the scientists stated

It is real simple CO2 goes up, warming does not go up

That is all, you could not look at a simple graph and tell us what it meant, you literally had to go to the website

like I said, you are very stupid

 

[Robert W]

Between JC456, Elektra, EMH, toobfreak and myself, there is only one poster whose views here align with mainstream science. And there name is not JC456, Elektra, EMH or toobfreak.

Mine align with climate scientists, Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, et al, but how about this:

Many climate change scientists do not agree that global warming is happening​

Gregory Gardner, Locum general practitioner
Author information Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer

​

editor—The apocalyptic tone that Smith adopted in relation to the environment bears little relation to reality.1 In his editorial Smith asserts, “virtually all scientists agree that global warming is happening.” Global warming is now joining the list of “what everyone knows.”
Whether most scientists outside climatology believe that global warming is happening is less relevant than whether the climatologists do. A letter signed by over 50 leading members of the American Meteorological Society warned about the policies promoted by environmental pressure groups. “The policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuel and requires immediate action. We do not agree.”2 Those who have signed the letter represent the overwhelming majority of climate change scientists in the United States, of whom there are about 60. McMichael and Haines quote the 1995 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is widely believed to “prove” that climate change induced by humans has occurred.3 The original draft document did not say this. What happened was that the policymakers’ summary (which became the “take home message” for politicians) altered the conclusions of the scientists. This led Dr Frederick Seitz, former head of the United States National Academy of Sciences, to write, “In more than sixty years as a member of the American scientific community ... I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”4
Policymaking should be guided by proved fact, not speculation. Most members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believe that current climate models do not accurately portray the atmosphere-ocean system. Measurements made by means of satellites show no global warming but a cooling of 0.13°C between 1979 and 1994.5 Furthermore, since the theory of global warming assumes maximum warming at the poles, why have average temperatures in the Arctic dropped by 0.88°C over the past 50 years?5

Many climate change scientists do not agree that global warming is happening

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov