Warning: Earth Needs More CO2

[Old Rocks]

Well Chic, were you to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere, in a few years there would be ice from pole to pole, with very, very little water vapor in the atmosphere.

Now if you removed all the water vapor in the atmosphere, it would take less than a week for the atmosphere to have just as much water as it had before you removed it.

So which is the primary greenhouse gas?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well Chic, were you to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere, in a few years there would be ice from pole to pole, with very, very little water vapor in the atmosphere.

Now if you removed all the water vapor in the atmosphere, it would take less than a week for the atmosphere to have just as much water as it had before you removed it.

So which is the primary greenhouse gas?

And you know this how?

Oh, right, a computer model?

 

[k2skier]

The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works outlined the staggering scale of the global warming scam in its article “Climate Skeptics Reveal ‘Horror Stories’ of Scientific Repression” (March 6). Take funding for global warming research, for example. Over the past decade, research intended to prove the veracity of man-made global warming has been funded to the tune of $50 billion, while global warming skeptic research has received a comparatively measly $19 million. That’s over 260,000 percent more funding for the alarmists!

Hmmm. the article calls it a scam, how about showing me an independent, non skewed/partisan view on your claim.

So your point is not that "over 260,000 percent more funding for the alarmists!" is untrue, simply that you want to see it from more sources?

Or are you contending that alarmists get less funding?

Once you can wrap your mind around the fact that big oil isn't the boogey man, but it is really BIG GREEN-Sierra Club-Global Scam that controls energy policy in this country, then the rest of the lies become clear.

If you truly believe this then I wont respond to another one of your posts, your beyond delusional.

Wise up. Why hasn't 'big oil' been able to get drilling in ANWR? Or offshore drilling? Check out Senate Bill 22 which is about to seal off 2 million acres of prime natural gas area and see if you see the fingerprints of 'big oil' or BIG GREEN.

Then ask yourself whether or not you've been lied to all these years.

BTW, how much access do global warming 'deniers' get to mass news media?
"http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=5032.0.104.0
“Of the three networks (ABC, NBC and CBS), 80 percent of stories (167 out of 205) didn’t mention skepticism or anyone at all who dissented from global warming. cBS did the absolute worst job. Ninety-seven percent of its stories ignored other opinions.”

Keep an open mind.
I always have, never have I said we have to change drastically to save ourselves from doom, no chicken little here, but we can only crap in our nest fro so long before we start smelling like shit.

That's because the other opinions are wrong.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. This was proven experimentally in 1859. That fact that you can't accept this shows how far gone you are.

Looks like millions.

A Really Inconvenient Truth | theTrumpet.com
"Take funding for global warming research, for example. Over the past decade, research intended to prove the veracity of man-made global warming has been funded to the tune of $50 billion, while global warming skeptic research has received a comparatively measly $19 million. That’s over 260,000 percent more funding for the alarmists!"

This is BILLIONS.

The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works outlined the staggering scale of the global warming scam in its article “Climate Skeptics Reveal ‘Horror Stories’ of Scientific Repression” (March 6). Take funding for global warming research, for example. Over the past decade, research intended to prove the veracity of man-made global warming has been funded to the tune of $50 billion, while global warming skeptic research has received a comparatively measly $19 million. That’s over 260,000 percent more funding for the alarmists!

Hmmm. the article calls it a scam, how about showing me an independent, non skewed/partisan view on your claim.

So your point is not that "over 260,000 percent more funding for the alarmists!" is untrue, simply that you want to see it from more sources?

Or are you contending that alarmists get less funding?

Once you can wrap your mind around the fact that big oil isn't the boogey man, but it is really BIG GREEN-Sierra Club-Global Scam that controls energy policy in this country, then the rest of the lies become clear.

Wise up. Why hasn't 'big oil' been able to get drilling in ANWR? Or offshore drilling? Check out Senate Bill 22 which is about to seal off 2 million acres of prime natural gas area and see if you see the fingerprints of 'big oil' or BIG GREEN.

Then ask yourself whether or not you've been lied to all these years.

BTW, how much access do global warming 'deniers' get to mass news media?
"http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=5032.0.104.0
“Of the three networks (ABC, NBC and CBS), 80 percent of stories (167 out of 205) didn’t mention skepticism or anyone at all who dissented from global warming. cBS did the absolute worst job. Ninety-seven percent of its stories ignored other opinions.”

Keep an open mind.

ANWR, is too expensive to get it out, and with enough oil coming from CA, why bother right now, best estimates are 6 years to 12 years to get oil flowing from ANWR. How much of this planet do we rape for short term benefits?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So your point is not that "over 260,000 percent more funding for the alarmists!" is untrue, simply that you want to see it from more sources?

Or are you contending that alarmists get less funding?

Once you can wrap your mind around the fact that big oil isn't the boogey man, but it is really BIG GREEN-Sierra Club-Global Scam that controls energy policy in this country, then the rest of the lies become clear.

If you truly believe this then I wont respond to another one of your posts, your beyond delusional.

Wise up. Why hasn't 'big oil' been able to get drilling in ANWR? Or offshore drilling? Check out Senate Bill 22 which is about to seal off 2 million acres of prime natural gas area and see if you see the fingerprints of 'big oil' or BIG GREEN.

Then ask yourself whether or not you've been lied to all these years.

BTW, how much access do global warming 'deniers' get to mass news media?
"http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=5032.0.104.0
“Of the three networks (ABC, NBC and CBS), 80 percent of stories (167 out of 205) didn’t mention skepticism or anyone at all who dissented from global warming. cBS did the absolute worst job. Ninety-seven percent of its stories ignored other opinions.”

Keep an open mind.
I always have, never have I said we have to change drastically to save ourselves from doom, no chicken little here, but we can only crap in our nest fro so long before we start smelling like shit.

That's because the other opinions are wrong.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. This was proven experimentally in 1859. That fact that you can't accept this shows how far gone you are.

The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works outlined the staggering scale of the global warming scam in its article “Climate Skeptics Reveal ‘Horror Stories’ of Scientific Repression” (March 6). Take funding for global warming research, for example. Over the past decade, research intended to prove the veracity of man-made global warming has been funded to the tune of $50 billion, while global warming skeptic research has received a comparatively measly $19 million. That’s over 260,000 percent more funding for the alarmists!

Hmmm. the article calls it a scam, how about showing me an independent, non skewed/partisan view on your claim.

So your point is not that "over 260,000 percent more funding for the alarmists!" is untrue, simply that you want to see it from more sources?

Or are you contending that alarmists get less funding?

Once you can wrap your mind around the fact that big oil isn't the boogey man, but it is really BIG GREEN-Sierra Club-Global Scam that controls energy policy in this country, then the rest of the lies become clear.

Wise up. Why hasn't 'big oil' been able to get drilling in ANWR? Or offshore drilling? Check out Senate Bill 22 which is about to seal off 2 million acres of prime natural gas area and see if you see the fingerprints of 'big oil' or BIG GREEN.

Then ask yourself whether or not you've been lied to all these years.

BTW, how much access do global warming 'deniers' get to mass news media?
"http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=5032.0.104.0
“Of the three networks (ABC, NBC and CBS), 80 percent of stories (167 out of 205) didn’t mention skepticism or anyone at all who dissented from global warming. cBS did the absolute worst job. Ninety-seven percent of its stories ignored other opinions.”

Keep an open mind.

ANWR, is too expensive to get it out, and with enough oil coming from CA, why bother right now, best estimates are 6 years to 12 years to get oil flowing from ANWR. How much of this planet do we rape for short term benefits?

Is your statement that ANWR drilling is allowed?

"...the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, that runs all the way from northern Prudhoe Bay to southern Valdez . It runs almost 800 miles from the Arctic Ocean to the Gulf of Alaska . President Richard Nixon signed the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act into law in November 1973. Construction began in March 1974 and ended in May of 1977." How many years?
http://think.mtv.com/044FDFFFF00989F20000800990745/User/Blog/BlogPostDetail.aspx

"ANWR is the largest single untapped source of American oil. The US Geological Survey estimates that it contains 5.7 to16 billion barrels of recoverable crude oil. Assuming the middle of this range, ANWR could provide nearly a million barrels per day, every day it is in operation, for several decades."
Opening ANWR: Long Overdue

And yet, BIG GREEN and the environmental ideologs won't allow it.

Do you see who runs things? That's my point.

See how brainwashed you are, using loaded terms like "rape the planet."

If you are capable, stop being distracted and forced to look at one small part of the puzzle.

As they say in Corinthians I, "when I became a man, I put away childish things." Realize that on this globe, we are but one nation, the finest nation, and there are other less humane nations nipping at our heels. Asian, South American, Caribbean nations drill practically at our shores. Stop shackling America and allow us to continue to protect the world.

 

[Sinatra]

That's because the other opinions are wrong.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. This was proven experimentally in 1859. That fact that you can't accept this shows how far gone you are.

So your point is not that "over 260,000 percent more funding for the alarmists!" is untrue, simply that you want to see it from more sources?

Or are you contending that alarmists get less funding?

Once you can wrap your mind around the fact that big oil isn't the boogey man, but it is really BIG GREEN-Sierra Club-Global Scam that controls energy policy in this country, then the rest of the lies become clear.

Wise up. Why hasn't 'big oil' been able to get drilling in ANWR? Or offshore drilling? Check out Senate Bill 22 which is about to seal off 2 million acres of prime natural gas area and see if you see the fingerprints of 'big oil' or BIG GREEN.

Then ask yourself whether or not you've been lied to all these years.

BTW, how much access do global warming 'deniers' get to mass news media?
"http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=5032.0.104.0
“Of the three networks (ABC, NBC and CBS), 80 percent of stories (167 out of 205) didn’t mention skepticism or anyone at all who dissented from global warming. cBS did the absolute worst job. Ninety-seven percent of its stories ignored other opinions.”

Keep an open mind.

ANWR, is too expensive to get it out, and with enough oil coming from CA, why bother right now, best estimates are 6 years to 12 years to get oil flowing from ANWR. How much of this planet do we rape for short term benefits?

Is your statement that ANWR drilling is allowed?

"...the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, that runs all the way from northern Prudhoe Bay to southern Valdez . It runs almost 800 miles from the Arctic Ocean to the Gulf of Alaska . President Richard Nixon signed the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act into law in November 1973. Construction began in March 1974 and ended in May of 1977." How many years?
http://think.mtv.com/044FDFFFF00989F20000800990745/User/Blog/BlogPostDetail.aspx

"ANWR is the largest single untapped source of American oil. The US Geological Survey estimates that it contains 5.7 to16 billion barrels of recoverable crude oil. Assuming the middle of this range, ANWR could provide nearly a million barrels per day, every day it is in operation, for several decades."
Opening ANWR: Long Overdue

And yet, BIG GREEN and the environmental ideologs won't allow it.

Do you see who runs things? That's my point.

See how brainwashed you are, using loaded terms like "rape the planet."

If you are capable, stop being distracted and forced to look at one small part of the puzzle.

As they say in Corinthians I, "when I became a man, I put away childish things." Realize that on this globe, we are but one nation, the finest nation, and there are other less humane nations nipping at our heels. Asian, South American, Caribbean nations drill practically at our shores. Stop shackling America and allow us to continue to protect the world.

Ah, the very same arguement implemented by the Clinton administration back in the day. If we had moved ahead THEN and started to tap into that expansive resouce of domestic oil, millions of barrels would be available to us today.

But no, the same arguement is repeated yet again - that it would "take too long" to get at that oil. Fact is, if the green light were given, that oil would flow within 3-5 years.

That is sound energy policy, not the ridiculous waste of billions in so called "green energy" deficit spending BS we see taking place today.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well Chic, were you to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere, in a few years there would be ice from pole to pole, with very, very little water vapor in the atmosphere.

Now if you removed all the water vapor in the atmosphere, it would take less than a week for the atmosphere to have just as much water as it had before you removed it.

So which is the primary greenhouse gas?

And you know this how?

Oh, right, a computer model?

Isn’t carbon dioxide a natural part of the atmosphere? If CO2 takes up such a small percentage of the atmosphere, why does it have such a big effect? | Earth Gauge


Isn’t carbon dioxide a natural part of the atmosphereIf CO2 takes up such a small percentage of the atmosphere, why does it have such a big effect?
Return to Climate Question & Answers

Through most of human history, carbon dioxide made up about 280 out of every million molecules (parts per million) in a given volume of air in Earth’s troposphere. This concentration remained quite steady for thousands of years, with some CO2 being added by volcanic processes (plus a relatively small amount breathed out by animals) and some CO2 being absorbed by oceans, plants, and soil. This natural balance was thrown out of sync by the Industrial Revolution. Even though Earth is now absorbing almost half of the CO2 we emit through fossil fuels, the atmospheric concentration continues to rise year after year. It’s now close to 390 parts per million and still climbing by around 1.5 to 2.5 ppm per year. Even if we stopped burning all fossil fuels tomorrow, it would take more than 100 years for the CO2 we’ve already added to the atmosphere to be drawn back out of it by the oceans, vegetation, and soil.

Just as a tiny amount of hot pepper can transform a recipe, a little extra CO2 has a huge effect on our atmosphere. Ninety-nine (99) percent of the atmosphere, including nitrogen and oxygen, doesn’t interfere with radiation reflected from Earth back out to space. But greenhouse gases-all of which have three or more atoms-are able to intercept large amounts of that outgoing radiation. As noted in question 2, without CO2, Earth’s average temperature would be close to zero Fahrenheit. If we had several times our current concentration of CO2, then temperatures would skyrocket, as they did more than once during prehistoric periods.

More information: “The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect.” From: The Discovery of Global Warming, by Spencer Weart. American Institute of Physics

Return to Climate Question & Answers

 

[Sinatra]

Well Chic, were you to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere, in a few years there would be ice from pole to pole, with very, very little water vapor in the atmosphere.

Now if you removed all the water vapor in the atmosphere, it would take less than a week for the atmosphere to have just as much water as it had before you removed it.

So which is the primary greenhouse gas?

And you know this how?

Oh, right, a computer model?

Isn’t carbon dioxide a natural part of the atmosphere? If CO2 takes up such a small percentage of the atmosphere, why does it have such a big effect? | Earth Gauge


Isn’t carbon dioxide a natural part of the atmosphereIf CO2 takes up such a small percentage of the atmosphere, why does it have such a big effect?
Return to Climate Question & Answers

Through most of human history, carbon dioxide made up about 280 out of every million molecules (parts per million) in a given volume of air in Earth’s troposphere. This concentration remained quite steady for thousands of years, with some CO2 being added by volcanic processes (plus a relatively small amount breathed out by animals) and some CO2 being absorbed by oceans, plants, and soil. This natural balance was thrown out of sync by the Industrial Revolution. Even though Earth is now absorbing almost half of the CO2 we emit through fossil fuels, the atmospheric concentration continues to rise year after year. It’s now close to 390 parts per million and still climbing by around 1.5 to 2.5 ppm per year. Even if we stopped burning all fossil fuels tomorrow, it would take more than 100 years for the CO2 we’ve already added to the atmosphere to be drawn back out of it by the oceans, vegetation, and soil.

Just as a tiny amount of hot pepper can transform a recipe, a little extra CO2 has a huge effect on our atmosphere. Ninety-nine (99) percent of the atmosphere, including nitrogen and oxygen, doesn’t interfere with radiation reflected from Earth back out to space. But greenhouse gases-all of which have three or more atoms-are able to intercept large amounts of that outgoing radiation. As noted in question 2, without CO2, Earth’s average temperature would be close to zero Fahrenheit. If we had several times our current concentration of CO2, then temperatures would skyrocket, as they did more than once during prehistoric periods.

More information: “The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect.” From: The Discovery of Global Warming, by Spencer Weart. American Institute of Physics

Return to Climate Question & Answers

Dr. Essenhigh would tell you to just chill out and do some learnin' on what CO2 really is - and is not...

Viewpoint: Global Warming Natural, May End Within 20 Years

 

[KittenKoder]

CO2 = food for plants ... thought they wanted more plants ... making more CO2 would mean more plants can be planted.

 

[Old Rocks]

And you know this how?

Oh, right, a computer model?

Isn’t carbon dioxide a natural part of the atmosphere? If CO2 takes up such a small percentage of the atmosphere, why does it have such a big effect? | Earth Gauge


Isn’t carbon dioxide a natural part of the atmosphereIf CO2 takes up such a small percentage of the atmosphere, why does it have such a big effect?
Return to Climate Question & Answers

Through most of human history, carbon dioxide made up about 280 out of every million molecules (parts per million) in a given volume of air in Earth’s troposphere. This concentration remained quite steady for thousands of years, with some CO2 being added by volcanic processes (plus a relatively small amount breathed out by animals) and some CO2 being absorbed by oceans, plants, and soil. This natural balance was thrown out of sync by the Industrial Revolution. Even though Earth is now absorbing almost half of the CO2 we emit through fossil fuels, the atmospheric concentration continues to rise year after year. It’s now close to 390 parts per million and still climbing by around 1.5 to 2.5 ppm per year. Even if we stopped burning all fossil fuels tomorrow, it would take more than 100 years for the CO2 we’ve already added to the atmosphere to be drawn back out of it by the oceans, vegetation, and soil.

Just as a tiny amount of hot pepper can transform a recipe, a little extra CO2 has a huge effect on our atmosphere. Ninety-nine (99) percent of the atmosphere, including nitrogen and oxygen, doesn’t interfere with radiation reflected from Earth back out to space. But greenhouse gases-all of which have three or more atoms-are able to intercept large amounts of that outgoing radiation. As noted in question 2, without CO2, Earth’s average temperature would be close to zero Fahrenheit. If we had several times our current concentration of CO2, then temperatures would skyrocket, as they did more than once during prehistoric periods.

More information: “The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect.” From: The Discovery of Global Warming, by Spencer Weart. American Institute of Physics

Return to Climate Question & Answers

Dr. Essenhigh would tell you to just chill out and do some learnin' on what CO2 really is - and is not...

Viewpoint: Global Warming Natural, May End Within 20 Years

From your article. Essenhigh is a Mechanical Engineer, not a physicist or climatologist. And his opinion is a very minority one, a minority of one, as it were.

Essenhigh knows that his scientific opinion is a minority one. As far as he knows, he's the only person who's linked global warming and carbon dioxide in this particular way. But he maintains his evaluations represent an improvement on those of the majority opinion, because they are logically rigorous and includes water vapor as a far more significant factor than in other studies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Isn’t carbon dioxide a natural part of the atmosphere? If CO2 takes up such a small percentage of the atmosphere, why does it have such a big effect? | Earth Gauge


Isn’t carbon dioxide a natural part of the atmosphereIf CO2 takes up such a small percentage of the atmosphere, why does it have such a big effect?
Return to Climate Question & Answers

Through most of human history, carbon dioxide made up about 280 out of every million molecules (parts per million) in a given volume of air in Earth’s troposphere. This concentration remained quite steady for thousands of years, with some CO2 being added by volcanic processes (plus a relatively small amount breathed out by animals) and some CO2 being absorbed by oceans, plants, and soil. This natural balance was thrown out of sync by the Industrial Revolution. Even though Earth is now absorbing almost half of the CO2 we emit through fossil fuels, the atmospheric concentration continues to rise year after year. It’s now close to 390 parts per million and still climbing by around 1.5 to 2.5 ppm per year. Even if we stopped burning all fossil fuels tomorrow, it would take more than 100 years for the CO2 we’ve already added to the atmosphere to be drawn back out of it by the oceans, vegetation, and soil.

Just as a tiny amount of hot pepper can transform a recipe, a little extra CO2 has a huge effect on our atmosphere. Ninety-nine (99) percent of the atmosphere, including nitrogen and oxygen, doesn’t interfere with radiation reflected from Earth back out to space. But greenhouse gases-all of which have three or more atoms-are able to intercept large amounts of that outgoing radiation. As noted in question 2, without CO2, Earth’s average temperature would be close to zero Fahrenheit. If we had several times our current concentration of CO2, then temperatures would skyrocket, as they did more than once during prehistoric periods.

More information: “The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect.” From: The Discovery of Global Warming, by Spencer Weart. American Institute of Physics

Return to Climate Question & Answers

Dr. Essenhigh would tell you to just chill out and do some learnin' on what CO2 really is - and is not...

Viewpoint: Global Warming Natural, May End Within 20 Years

From your article. Essenhigh is a Mechanical Engineer, not ". And his opinion is a very minority one, a minority of one, as it were.

Essenhigh knows that his scientific opinion is a minority one. As far as he knows, he's the only person who's linked global warming and carbon dioxide in this particular way. But he maintains his evaluations represent an improvement on those of the majority opinion, because they are logically rigorous and includes water vapor as a far more significant factor than in other studies.

From you espousals I must assume you are "a physicist or climatologist."

And your area of expertise?

 

[Sinatra]

Dr. Essenhigh would tell you to just chill out and do some learnin' on what CO2 really is - and is not...

Viewpoint: Global Warming Natural, May End Within 20 Years

From your article. Essenhigh is a Mechanical Engineer, not ". And his opinion is a very minority one, a minority of one, as it were.

Essenhigh knows that his scientific opinion is a minority one. As far as he knows, he's the only person who's linked global warming and carbon dioxide in this particular way. But he maintains his evaluations represent an improvement on those of the majority opinion, because they are logically rigorous and includes water vapor as a far more significant factor than in other studies.

From you espousals I must assume you are "a physicist or climatologist."

And your area of expertise?

LOL - Old Rocks doesn't even understand the field from which Essenhigh studies in!

Essenhigh's particular areas of expertise are in reaction kinetics, combustion principles - among them carbon, gases, radiative heat transfers, etc.

Those are the some of the very principles that make up the complex climate of our earth!

Yet another incredibly asinine contribution by Old Rocks - a figure whose utter lack of understanding of this issue is becoming readily apparent to all who are participating in this forum...