Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I believe that Earth has the capacity to green. That more CO2 feeds plants a vital food source.Let me get this straight. You believe that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, through humans burning fossil fuels, will increase the amount taken up by plants and that will increase the amount of oxygen released by plants and, because oxygen is consumed in combustion, that will warm the planet which will be a good thing. Is that right?
Increased CO2 will lead to some increased greening. Unfortunately, it will also cause greenhouse warming that will have the opposite effect.I believe that Earth has the capacity to green. That more CO2 feeds plants a vital food source.
It depends entirely on how warm you are willing to tolerate. Those living in Death Valley must accommodate a hell of a lot more warming than say at Seattle, WA.
Death Valley, replicated all over countries of course is terrible.
You appear to not believe that plants are a major factor in climate.Increased CO2 will lead to some increased greening. Unfortunately, it will also cause greenhouse warming that will have the opposite effect.
Are you clear now on oxygen? Do you understand the greenhouse effect?
CO2 does not cause a linear impact.Increased CO2 will lead to some increased greening. Unfortunately, it will also cause greenhouse warming that will have the opposite effect.
Are you clear now on oxygen? Do you understand the greenhouse effect?
You claimed that increased CO2 in the atmosphere would increase plant growth which would increase oxygen production which would warm the planet.You appear to not believe that plants are a major factor in climate.
Yes of course i understand the greenhouse effect. What is your point about oxygen?
It does not "sink". It is a well-mixed gas having some of its most crucial effect in the Stratosphere. Some of it is absorbed by the oceans but human's burning of fossil fuels have increased its level in the atmosphere by 50% since the Industrial Revolution and that is the primary cause of the warming observed since then.Do you understand the dense gas we know of as Carbon Dioxide? That it sinks to be absorbed by earth and the oceans?
I did not say that. I did however say that CO2 is vital to a plant that uses it as food in effect. And yes if you double the number of plants, you vastly increase the amount of available O2.You claimed that increased CO2 in the atmosphere would increase plant growth which would increase oxygen production which would warm the planet.
Oxygen will not warm the planet and burning fossil fuels has decreased the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere
It does not "sink". It is a well-mixed gas. Some of it is absorbed by the oceans but human's burning of fossil fuels have increased its level in the atmosphere by 50% since the Industrial Revolution and that is the primary cause of the warming observed since then.
Yes. That is why doubling its level in the atmosphere would only result in an increase of about 3C.CO2 does not cause a linear impact.
As Dr. Lindzen points out, that increase happens on most days of the year. Here for example the AM started at around 29 F yet now it is 38F and no harm has come to anybody here.Yes. That is why doubling its level in the atmosphere would only result in an increase of about 3C.
Yes you did. We can pull down the quote if you'd like.I did not say that.
It is required by all plants for photosynthesis. No one is arguing that point. But humans survived (ie, ate) quite well for 200,000 years with CO2 that never went over 300 ppm.I did however say that CO2 is vital to a plant that uses it as food in effect.
No amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere would double the number of plants growing. And adding CO2 by burning fossil fuel DECREASES the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. THAT'S WHAT THE CO2 IS MADE FROM!And yes if you double the number of plants, you vastly increase the amount of available O2.
Yes you did. We can pull that quote down as well if you'd like. Remember your comment about acetylene?I did not claim it warms the planet.
Yes it is. But not, apparently, by you.The issue of the impact of burning petroleum based fuels is well understood.
Half of the species of gases that make up our atmosphere are "heavier then air", but the density difference is not sufficient to overcome the physical mixing from winds, updrafts, downdrafts and precipitation. You would suggest that the Earth's CO2 is concentrated at the ground. Do you believe it is dangerous to lay down on the Earth; that one could die from hypoxia?When O2 is combined as it happens in the ICE, naturally that impact has to be considered. CO2 being heavier than air definitely sinks.
99% of the world's climate scientists disagree. That warming is causing the world's ice to melt. Sea level is rising at an accelerating rate. The Gulf Stream has measurably slowed and there is a very real danger that fresh meltwater is going to stop the ocean's meridional overturning currents, whose collapse will lead to massive marine die-offs. The lack of snow in the world's mountains is reducing drinking water supplies. Heatwaves are taking down crops and livestock. The warming will most assuredly bother us all.I maintain any such warming will not bother us at all.
Pass that along to someone with no electricity and no drinking water.Same as when you go into death Valley where it might be 120, you hydrate and use AC which is available.
What do you gain by misquoting my comments?Yes you did. We can pull down the quote if you'd like.
It is required by all plants for photosynthesis. No one is arguing that point. But humans survived (ie, ate) quite well for 200,000 years with CO2 that never went over 300 ppm.
No amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere would double the number of plants growing. And adding CO2 by burning fossil fuel DECREASES the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. THAT'S WHAT THE CO2 IS MADE FROM!
Yes you did. We can pull that quote down as well if you'd like. Remember your comment about acetylene?
Yes it is. But not, apparently, by you.
Half of the species of gases that make up our atmosphere are "heavier then air", but the density difference is not sufficient to overcome the physical mixing from winds, updrafts, downdrafts and precipitation. You would suggest that the Earth's CO2 is concentrated at the ground. Do you believe it is dangerous to lay down on the Earth; that one could die from hypoxia?
99% of the world's climate scientists disagree. That warming is causing the world's ice to melt. Sea level is rising at an accelerating rate. The Gulf Stream has measurably slowed and there is a very real danger that fresh meltwater is going to stop the ocean's meridional overturning currents, whose collapse will lead to massive marine die-offs. The lack of snow in the world's mountains is reducing drinking water supplies. Heatwaves are taking down crops and livestock. The warming will most assuredly bother us all.
Pass that along to someone with no electricity and no drinking water.
A natural climate fluctuation. Of which the geologic record is littered with examples of such that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing.What do you call this evidence?
This is what made you claim I said oxygen heats earth. I was not making that a point at all. Oxygen combines and the product is heat. But I make no claims at all this is what heats earth.What do you call this evidence?
View attachment 850264
The Raw Truth on Global Temperature Records
Ensuring the accuracy of Earth’s long-term global and regional surface temperature records is a challenging, constantly evolving undertaking. There are lots of reasons for this, including changes in the availability of data, technological advancements in how land and sea surface temperatures are...climate.nasa.gov
Oxygen does not heat the Earth and what we are trying to avoid is the temperature going above anythingever experienced by homo sapiens.
I saw some plants yesterday burning tires with Greta Thunberg.You appear to not believe that plants are a major factor in climate.
Yes of course i understand the greenhouse effect. What is your point about oxygen?
Do you understand the dense gas we know of as Carbon Dioxide? That it sinks to be absorbed by earth and the oceans?
Why don't you check all of the evidence? We are not in a global warming stage.
Frankly it would be better if we were.
Why? CO2 feeds plants. Plants emit oxygen. Oxygen produces heat. The planet will be far better off producing O2 than that which cools earth.
You are deluded. Oxygen produces heat.
I have indeed to your question on my study. When you add O2 to Acetylene it produces a very hot fire. Didn't you know about that?
This is what made you claim I said oxygen heats earth. I was not making that a point at all. Oxygen combines and the product is heat. But I make no claims at all this is what heats earth.
The experts. An extremely large majority of active climate scientists believe that global warming is taking place and that its primary cause is the greenhouse effect working on human CO2 emissions. Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry differ slightly, but they are part of a very small minority.Who should I believe on this topic?
This is why we use sources and links. I am not a climate scientist. I am a retired ocean engineer but I know enough science to see which way the wind is blowing. Go to this link and read "Summary for Policy Makers". It is the first item on the first bulleted list. It is sort of a Readers Digest version of a larger work you can access through this same link that explains the current state of climate science regarding manmade global warming. AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC It is the work of dozens and dozens of scientists easily of standing equal to Lindzen and Curry.You a party who is unknown, has the handle Crick, or the Scientists who are world class experts on Global Climate?
Only a fool trusts anything government "scientists" claim.The experts. An extremely large majority of active climate scientists believe that global warming is taking place and that its primary cause is the greenhouse effect working on human CO2 emissions. Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry differ slightly, but they are part of a very small minority.
This is why we use sources and links. I am not a climate scientist. I am a retired ocean engineer but I know enough science to see which way the wind is blowing. Go to this link and read "Summary for Policy Makers". It is the first item on the first bulleted list. It is sort of a Readers Digest version of a larger work you can access through this same link that explains the current state of climate science regarding manmade global warming. AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC It is the work of dozens and dozens of scientists easily of standing equal to Lindzen and Curry.
How scared have they made you?The experts. An extremely large majority of active climate scientists believe that global warming is taking place and that its primary cause is the greenhouse effect working on human CO2 emissions. Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry differ slightly, but they are part of a very small minority.
This is why we use sources and links. I am not a climate scientist. I am a retired ocean engineer but I know enough science to see which way the wind is blowing. Go to this link and read "Summary for Policy Makers". It is the first item on the first bulleted list. It is sort of a Readers Digest version of a larger work you can access through this same link that explains the current state of climate science regarding manmade global warming. AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC It is the work of dozens and dozens of scientists easily of standing equal to Lindzen and Curry.
I think not. I have gone to an extreme to make it clear.Here are your claims. You'll have to explain but that first statement clearly seems to indicate you believe oxygen will heat the Earth.
I have questioned it being from Fossils since I studied this around 1966. I purchased for the company I worked for a wonderful text book on this subject, eg. oil production.
I kept wondering how fossils could get at depths of 30,000 feet in Earth and in significant numbers. It bothered me the story of calling this from fossils.
An Author maintains that oil is being produced in Earth today. He asserts the process of creating petroleum is not over. You might want to read his book.
"
Twenty-five years ago this month, Thomas Gold published a seminal manuscript suggesting the presence of a “deep, hot biosphere” in the Earth’s crust. Since this publication, a considerable amount of attention has been given to the study of deep biospheres, their role in geochemical cycles, and their potential to inform on the origin of life and its potential outside of Earth. Overwhelming evidence now supports the presence of a deep biosphere ubiquitously distributed on Earth in both terrestrial and marine settings. Furthermore, it has become apparent that much of this life is dependent on lithogenically sourced high-energy compounds to sustain productivity. A vast diversity of uncultivated microorganisms has been detected in subsurface environments, and we show that H2, CH4, and CO feature prominently in many of their predicted metabolisms. Despite 25 years of intense study, key questions remain on life in the deep subsurface, including whether it is endemic and the extent of its involvement in the anaerobic formation and degradation of hydrocarbons. Emergent data from cultivation and next-generation sequencing approaches continue to provide promising new hints to answer these questions. As Gold suggested, and as has become increasingly evident, to better understand the subsurface is critical to further understanding the Earth, life, the evolution of life, and the potential for life elsewhere. To this end, we suggest the need to develop a robust network of interdisciplinary scientists and accessible field sites for long-term monitoring of the Earth’s subsurface in the form of a deep subsurface microbiome initiative.
A quarter-century ago this month, Thomas Gold, an Austrian-born astrophysicist from Cornell University, published a paper in these pages entitled simply, “The deep, hot biosphere” (1). In this paper, followed by a book of the same title (2), Gold suggested that microbial life is likely widespread throughout Earth’s subsurface, residing in the pore spaces between grains in rocks. Furthermore, he speculated that this life likely exists to a depth of multiple kilometers, until elevated temperature becomes the constraining factor. Gold hypothesized that life in subsurface locales is supported by chemical sources of energy, rather than photosynthetic sources, upon which surface life ultimately depends (1). The nutrients that support this subsurface life are provided by both the migration of fluids from the depths of the Earth’s crust and the host rock itself, which contains both oxidized and reduced minerals. Although it is likely to be all microbial, Gold posited that the mass of subsurface life in this little-known biosphere was comparable to that present in surface environments. Gold thought that if there is life at depth, the rocks that have (or could produce) “hydrogen (H2), methane (CH4), and other fluids… would seem to be the most favorable locations for the first generation of self-replicating systems,” keenly aware that “such life may be widely disseminated in the universe” (1). Moreover, Gold hypothesized that hydrocarbons and their derived products fuel chemosynthetic subsurface life and that these hydrocarbons are not biology reworked by geology, but, rather, geology reworked by biology (2).
Although he did not have a doctorate, Gold (1920–2004) was highly recognized as a scientist, as evidenced by receiving a Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society (1985) and a Humboldt Prize (1979); membership in the National Academy of Sciences (1974); and induction into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1974), the Royal Society (1964), the American Geophysical Union (1962), and the Royal Astronomical Society (1948), among others. As an author of ∼300 scholarly papers, Gold had a penchant for contributing his thoughts to fields well beyond his own of astrophysics. In the foreword to Gold's book The Deep Hot Biosphere, the theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson wrote, “Gold’s theories are always original, always important, usually controversial—and usually right” (2). Stephen Jay Gould considered Gold as “one of America’s most iconoclastic scientists”
What force?
