Warning: Earth Needs More CO2

[Sinatra]

My god!!!!! The earth is actually undergoing CO2 depletion!!!!

For the sake of all humanity, go out and buy an SUV, turn up the A/C, run the furnace at 78 degrees, burn as much firewood as you can - do this NOW to save us from certain climate change disaster!

The science says it is so - EARTH NEEDS MORE CO2!!!!!!

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...Store_id=84462e2d-6bff-4983-a574-31f5ae8e8a42

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Obviously a paid stooge for some big oil company.

 

[manu1959]

my roses are doing very well this year......

 

[Chris]

Happer basically confirms everything that other scientists have said.

That the increase in CO2 has caused the earth to warm about one degree in temperature.

 

[Sinatra]

The evidence appears credible - the earth could in fact need MORE CO2.

The implications are astounding!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Happer basically confirms everything that other scientists have said.

That the increase in CO2 has caused the earth to warm about one degree in temperature.

It further confirms that the effect of continued increases will NOT cause much more rise in temperature. And it further supports the claim that Man is not the main culprit at all.

 

[elvis]

Happer basically confirms everything that other scientists have said.

That the increase in CO2 has caused the earth to warm about one degree in temperature.

It further confirms that the effect of continued increases will NOT cause much more rise in temperature. And it further supports the claim that Man is not the main culprit at all.

rain man chrissie will continue to say the same thing over and over again.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, the George C. Marshall Institute is funded by big oil.
George C. Marshall Institute - SourceWatch
The George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization founded in 1984. The think tank's mission is to "encourage the use of sound science in making public policy about important issues for which science and technology are major considerations." The "program emphasizes issues in national security and the environment."[1]
According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest: "The Marshall Institute investigates facts concerning global climate change. The Institute also studies the implications of the Kyoto Protocol upon national security. The Institute is partially supported by the Exxon Education Foundation and American Standard Companies."[2]

Contents [hide]
1 Personnel
1.1 Board of Directors
1.1.1 Former Board members
1.2 Staff
2 Funding
2.1 Petro-Dollars
3 SEPP
4 Contact information
5 Articles and Resources
5.1 Sources
5.2 Related SourceWatch Articles
5.3 External Articles

[edit]Personnel
[edit]Board of Directors
William Happer, Chairman of the Board of Directors; also Eugene Higgens Professor of Physics, Princeton University
Frederick Seitz, Chairman Emeritus (GMI); President Emeritus of Rockefeller University
William O'Keefe, CEO (GMI); President, Solutions Consulting, Inc.
Gregory Canavan, Scientific Advisor, Physics Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Thomas L. Clancy, Jr., Author
John H. Moore, President, Grove City College
Rodney W. Nichols, Consultant on Science and Technology Policy
Robert Sproull, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Rochester

 

[del]

yes, old rocks is monomaniacal.

 

[Old Rocks]

The evidence appears credible - the earth could in fact need MORE CO2.

The implications are astounding!

Yes, the implications are astounding. A respected member of society becomes a whore for money. Same as for politicians. In this case it is a scientist.

More CO2 means more warming, which will result in an adrupt climate change. The results of that will not be pleasant in the best of cases. We are seeing an example of this in the present droughts that will reduce the worlds food production as the population continues to increase.

More CO2 means higher sea levels, which will result in some of the most productive farmland in the world being inundated with salt water. And the creation of hundreds of millions of refugees.

More CO2 means the continued acidification of the ocean waters. Already we are seeing negative affects on the single celled organisms in the ocean that are the basis of the food chain.

Sure, more CO2 is a good thing, just like flavoring your coffee with potassium cynide is a good thing.

 

[Old Rocks]

Obviously a paid stooge for some big oil company.

Yes, as a matter of fact. Established that rather quickly.

 

[Old Rocks]

Happer basically confirms everything that other scientists have said.

That the increase in CO2 has caused the earth to warm about one degree in temperature.

It further confirms that the effect of continued increases will NOT cause much more rise in temperature. And it further supports the claim that Man is not the main culprit at all.

That is what he states. And that is completely wrong by what all the other physicists state.

Simple Models of Climate

Not until the mid-20th century would scientists fully grasp, and calculate with some precision, just how the effect works. A rough explanation goes like this. Visible sunlight penetrates easily through the air and warms the Earth’s surface. When the surface emits invisible infrared heat radiation, this radiation too easily penetrates the main gases of the air. But as Tyndall found, even a trace of CO2, no more than it took to fill a bottle in his laboratory, is almost opaque to heat radiation. Thus a good part of the radiation that rises from the surface is absorbed by CO2 in the middle levels of the atmosphere. Its energy transfers into the air itself rather than escaping directly into space. Not only is the air thus warmed, but also some of the energy trapped there is radiated back to the surface, warming it further.








=>CO2 greenhouse

That’s a shorthand way of explaining the greenhouse effect — seeing it from below, from "inside" the atmosphere. Unfortunately, shorthand arguments can be misleading if you push them too far. Fourier, Tyndall and most other scientists for nearly a century used this approach, looking at warming from ground level, so to speak, asking about the radiation that reaches and leaves the surface of the Earth. So they tended to think of the atmosphere overhead as a unit, as if it were a single sheet of glass. (Thus the "greenhouse" analogy.) But this is not how global warming actually works, if you look at the process in detail.
What happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface? As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. (To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer.) The layer of air radiates some of the energy it has absorbed back toward the ground, and some upwards to higher layers. As you go higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and colder. Eventually the energy reaches a layer so thin that radiation can escape into space.

What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get warmer and radiate out more energy. As in Tyndall's analogy of a dam on a river, the barrier thrown across the outgoing radiation forces the level of temperature everywhere beneath it to rise until there is enough radiation pushing out to balance what the Sun sends in.

 

[Old Rocks]

yes, old rocks is monomaniacal.

LOL. No, I am informed enough on this subject to understand when fools are trying to blow smoke up my ass.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yes we all know it's impossible that all those so called believable scientists would, in their quest for government research dollars, simply interpret data in a way that the government wants to hear.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes, the George C. Marshall Institute is funded by big oil.
George C. Marshall Institute - SourceWatch
The George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization founded in 1984. The think tank's mission is to "encourage the use of sound science in making public policy about important issues for which science and technology are major considerations." The "program emphasizes issues in national security and the environment."[1]
According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest: "The Marshall Institute investigates facts concerning global climate change. The Institute also studies the implications of the Kyoto Protocol upon national security. The Institute is partially supported by the Exxon Education Foundation and American Standard Companies."[2]

Contents [hide]
1 Personnel
1.1 Board of Directors
1.1.1 Former Board members
1.2 Staff
2 Funding
2.1 Petro-Dollars
3 SEPP
4 Contact information
5 Articles and Resources
5.1 Sources
5.2 Related SourceWatch Articles
5.3 External Articles

[edit]Personnel
[edit]Board of Directors
William Happer, Chairman of the Board of Directors; also Eugene Higgens Professor of Physics, Princeton University
Frederick Seitz, Chairman Emeritus (GMI); President Emeritus of Rockefeller University
William O'Keefe, CEO (GMI); President, Solutions Consulting, Inc.
Gregory Canavan, Scientific Advisor, Physics Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Thomas L. Clancy, Jr., Author
John H. Moore, President, Grove City College
Rodney W. Nichols, Consultant on Science and Technology Policy
Robert Sproull, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Rochester

Let's dispense with the big lie that "Big Oil" makes people lie and wants to ruin the planet.

Bulletin: it's BIG GREEN.

Not so? If Big Oil was as powerfull as Big Green why haven't we been drilling in ANWR?

Who has the power to control Congress, and prevent the US from optimizing its energy production? BIG GREEN.

From Dalrymple, in the City Journal:

"The most popular and widest-ranging ideology in the West today is environmentalism, replacing not only Marxism but all the ideologies that intellectuals espoused in the 1920s. Most started life as legitimate complaints, but as political reforms dealt with reasonable demands, the demands transformed themselves into ideologies, thus illustrating a fact of human psychology: rage is not always proportionate to its occasion but can be a powerful reward in itself. Feminists continued to see every human problem as a manifestation of patriarchy, civil rights activists as a manifestation of racism, homosexual-rights activists as a manifestation of homophobia, anti-globalists as a manifestation of globalization, and radical libertarians as a manifestation of state regulation.
But it isn’t difficult to spot in environmentalists’ work something more than mere concern with a practical problem. Their writings often show themselves akin to the calls to repentance of seventeenth-century divines in the face of plague epidemics, but with the patina of rationality that every ideology needs to disguise its true source in existential angst."

Wise up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Obviously a paid stooge for some big oil company.

Yes, as a matter of fact. Established that rather quickly.

Paid stooges? You want PAID stooges?

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!"

 

[Chris]

Happer basically confirms everything that other scientists have said.

That the increase in CO2 has caused the earth to warm about one degree in temperature.

It further confirms that the effect of continued increases will NOT cause much more rise in temperature. And it further supports the claim that Man is not the main culprit at all.

No, Happer confirms what other scientists have been saying, that CO2 has caused the earth to heat up one degree in the last century. What is remarkable is that the effects of this rise in temperature was greater than even the most pessimistic scientist had predicted. Happer's article came out in 2002, five years before the astonishing melt down of the North Pole in 2007.

Why was the effect so much greater than predicted?

Because of the positive feedback effects of melting of the polar ice cap.

 

[slackjawed]

Easy solution, just add CO2 credits to that cap and trade policy so when we need more pollutants, we pay polluters to add more to our atmosphere.
If we need more CO2 we should pay for it......

 

[Sinatra]

Happer basically confirms everything that other scientists have said.

That the increase in CO2 has caused the earth to warm about one degree in temperature.

It further confirms that the effect of continued increases will NOT cause much more rise in temperature. And it further supports the claim that Man is not the main culprit at all.

No, Happer confirms what other scientists have been saying, that CO2 has caused the earth to heat up one degree in the last century. What is remarkable is that the effects of this rise in temperature was greater than even the most pessimistic scientist had predicted. Happer's article came out in 2002, five years before the astonishing melt down of the North Pole in 2007.
Why was the effect so much greater than predicted?

Because of the positive feedback effects of melting of the polar ice cap.

There is no "astonishing meltdown".

Poll and Polar Ice Trends « Watts Up With That?

 

[Chris]

Arctic sea ice during the 2007 melt season plummeted to the lowest levels since satellite measurements began in 1979. The average sea ice extent for the month of September was 4.28 million square kilometers (1.65 million square miles), the lowest September on record, shattering the previous record for the month, set in 2005, by 23 percent (see Figure 1). At the end of the melt season, September 2007 sea ice was 39 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000 (see Figure 2). If ship and aircraft records from before the satellite era are taken into account, sea ice may have fallen by as much as 50 percent from the 1950s. The September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 is now approximately 10 percent per decade, or 72,000 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year (see Figure 3).

NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice News Fall 2007