Warning: Earth Needs More CO2

[Midnight Marauder]

Someone must own some oil stock....

Did you take five minutes to read the statement of the Princeton University physics professor?

Yes, we did.

He agreed with the rest of the scientists that CO2 has increased the earth's temperature by one degree in the last hundred years.

The problem is the effect of the CO2 increase is cumulative and constantly increasing. Combine that with the feedback effects of melting poles, and the effect will become more powerful in the future.

That's not what he said. You DIDN'T read it.

There is little argument in the scientific
community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small
increase of the earth’s temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments
of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2
in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. It is like
putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one
below it, but your are only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to
add a warmer jacket.

He says, doubling of the current concentration will increase tempature by 1 degree.

He elucidates further:

Over the past
ten years there has been no global warming, and in fact a slight cooling. This is not at
all what was predicted by the IPCC models.

Chrissy, you are a liar. You did not read the statement and are simply making up your own version of what he said.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

But what about the frightening consequences of increasing levels of CO2 that we
keep hearing about? In a word, they are wildly exaggerated, just as the purported
benefits of prohibition were wildly exaggerated.

He makes a very good analogy between prohibition and this "Climate Change" science fiction hysteria. Organized crime found its birthplace there, to this day we have never completely recovered from that panic boondoggle. We're making the exact same mistake now, except the convenient "devil" this time is CO2 -- which also happens to be essential for all life on this planet.

If I'm reading your post correctly MM, you're saying that alcohol is essential for all life on this planet?

You were not. The "also" modifies back to "the devil."

CO2 is the devil and also essential for all life on the planet.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

He also exposes again, one of the biggest lies of the AGW church:

When I was a schoolboy, my textbooks on earth science showed a prominent “medieval
warm period” at the time the Vikings settled Greenland, followed by a vicious “little ice
age” that drove them out. So I was very surprised when I first saw the celebrated
“hockey stick curve,” in the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC. I could hardly
believe my eyes. Both the little ice age and the Medieval Warm Period were gone, and
the newly revised temperature of the world since the year 1000 had suddenly become
absolutely flat until the last hundred years when it shot up like the blade on a hockey
stick. This was far from an obscure detail, and the hockey stick was trumpeted around
the world as evidence that the end was near. We now know that the hockey stick has
nothing to do with reality but was the result of incorrect handling of proxy temperature
records and incorrect statistical analysis.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

More truth from this guy, about CO2:

I keep hearing about the “pollutant CO2,” or about “poisoning the atmosphere”
with CO2, or about minimizing our “carbon footprint.” This brings to mind another
Orwellian pronouncement that is worth pondering: “But if thought corrupts language,
language can also corrupt thought.” CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we
should not corrupt the English language by depriving “pollutant” and “poison” of their
original meaning. Our exhaled breath contains about 4% CO2. That is 40,000 parts per
million, or about 100 times the current atmospheric concentration. CO2 is absolutely
essential for life on earth. Commercial greenhouse operators often use CO2 as a
fertilizer to improve the health and growth rate of their plants. Plants, and our own
primate ancestors evolved when the levels of atmospheric CO2 were about 1000 ppm,
a level that we will probably not reach by burning fossil fuels, and far above our current
level of about 380 ppm. We try to keep CO2 levels in our US Navy submarines no
higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few
adverse effects are observed at even higher levels.

 

[PoliticalChic]

He also exposes again, one of the biggest lies of the AGW church:

When I was a schoolboy, my textbooks on earth science showed a prominent “medieval
warm period” at the time the Vikings settled Greenland, followed by a vicious “little ice
age” that drove them out. So I was very surprised when I first saw the celebrated
“hockey stick curve,” in the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC. I could hardly
believe my eyes. Both the little ice age and the Medieval Warm Period were gone, and
the newly revised temperature of the world since the year 1000 had suddenly become
absolutely flat until the last hundred years when it shot up like the blade on a hockey
stick. This was far from an obscure detail, and the hockey stick was trumpeted around
the world as evidence that the end was near. We now know that the hockey stick has
nothing to do with reality but was the result of incorrect handling of proxy temperature
records and incorrect statistical analysis.

Friend, our mistake is in dealing with AGW soap-boxers as though this was a scientific debate.

We have to identify them as neuotic babblers, and realize that it is not facts and time that will cure them. In an old routine, Mel Brooks as a psychiatrist cures a patient’s compulsion to form paper-dolls by saying, “Don’t tear paper.”

Treat them in the same way. Calmly tell them "Don't believe nonsense."

 

[Chris]

Sinatra, I appreciate your civil posts without the silly name calling of some people here.

From the article you posted...

"That is the position of a more moderate expert on climate change, William Chameides, dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University, who says, “I don’t think it’s time to panic,” but contends that, because of global warming, “more sea-level rise is inevitable and will displace millions; melting high-altitude glaciers will threaten the food supplies for perhaps a billion or more; and ocean acidification could undermine the food supply of another billion or so.” Dyson strongly disagrees with each of these points..."

Here's the problem with these points.....

A very small increase in the sea level will displace millions.

Many of the glaciers referred to above have already melted.

And the influence of CO2 on the climate grows greater each and every day.

Now against that we have the "possiblilty" of a coming ice age. But the effect of CO2 is here now and is already happening. So we have to weight the threat of CO2 caused global warming against the possibilty of a coming ice age. Which seems like the more immediate threat? I would have to say global warming.

Dyson refuted all of those points - as well as indicating current CO2 levels are historically low, and that higher Co2 could be of great benefit to the overall climate.

He maintains, and I agree - there are far more pressing concerns for humanity than the speculative outlook regarding global warming.

Current CO2 levels are the highest in 600,000 years which is as far back as the Antarctic ice core record goes.

Plus, we are close to doubling CO2 in the atmosphere and the poles and glaciers are melting. These are "pressing concerns for humanity."

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Friend, our mistake is in dealing with AGW soap-boxers as though this was a scientific debate.

We have to identify them as neuotic babblers, and realize that it is not facts and time that will cure them. In an old routine, Mel Brooks as a psychiatrist cures a patient’s compulsion to form paper-dolls by saying, “Don’t tear paper.”

Treat them in the same way. Calmly tell them "Don't believe nonsense."

Exposing their outright lies and distortions makes them scurry like cockroaches from the light. I already know there's nothing that is going to convince them they are blind believers of a fast failing religion. I have no delusions that truth and reason have any effect on them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Friend, our mistake is in dealing with AGW soap-boxers as though this was a scientific debate.

We have to identify them as neuotic babblers, and realize that it is not facts and time that will cure them. In an old routine, Mel Brooks as a psychiatrist cures a patient’s compulsion to form paper-dolls by saying, “Don’t tear paper.”

Treat them in the same way. Calmly tell them "Don't believe nonsense."

Exposing their outright lies and distortions makes them scurry like cockroaches from the light. I already know there's nothing that is going to convince them they are blind believers of a fast failing religion. I have no delusions that truth and reason have any effect on them.

Here is their mantra:
"I am nobody. Nobody is perfect. Therefore I am perfect."

 

[Chris]

Friend, our mistake is in dealing with AGW soap-boxers as though this was a scientific debate.

We have to identify them as neuotic babblers, and realize that it is not facts and time that will cure them. In an old routine, Mel Brooks as a psychiatrist cures a patient’s compulsion to form paper-dolls by saying, “Don’t tear paper.”

Treat them in the same way. Calmly tell them "Don't believe nonsense."

Exposing their outright lies and distortions makes them scurry like cockroaches from the light. I already know there's nothing that is going to convince them they are blind believers of a fast failing religion. I have no delusions that truth and reason have any effect on them.

Truth and reason?

Every scientific society on the planet agrees with us, and the facts are irrefutable. CO2 causes the earth to retain heat, and we have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

Still waiting on you to refute that.

 

[Zoom-boing]

He makes a very good analogy between prohibition and this "Climate Change" science fiction hysteria. Organized crime found its birthplace there, to this day we have never completely recovered from that panic boondoggle. We're making the exact same mistake now, except the convenient "devil" this time is CO2 -- which also happens to be essential for all life on this planet.

If I'm reading your post correctly MM, you're saying that alcohol is essential for all life on this planet?

You were not. The "also" modifies back to "the devil."

CO2 is the devil and also essential for all life on the planet.

Oh. Damn it.

 

[Sinatra]

Friend, our mistake is in dealing with AGW soap-boxers as though this was a scientific debate.

We have to identify them as neuotic babblers, and realize that it is not facts and time that will cure them. In an old routine, Mel Brooks as a psychiatrist cures a patient’s compulsion to form paper-dolls by saying, “Don’t tear paper.”

Treat them in the same way. Calmly tell them "Don't believe nonsense."

Exposing their outright lies and distortions makes them scurry like cockroaches from the light. I already know there's nothing that is going to convince them they are blind believers of a fast failing religion. I have no delusions that truth and reason have any effect on them.

Truth and reason?

Every scientific society on the planet agrees with us, and the facts are irrefutable. CO2 causes the earth to retain heat, and we have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

Still waiting on you to refute that.

Yet another overly broad generalization that either intentionally or by accident, leaves out the actual facts on this subject. The 380ppm CO2 value that has been assigned to today has been bested a number of times in relatively recent history - the overall average in the 19th Century was approximately 321ppm. The 20th Century was 338ppm. The highest 20the Century reading was in 1942 when CO2 rose to just over 420ppm. As such, our current CO2 levels are considerably lower than they were approximately 70 years ago - though it should be noted CO2 levels can and do fluctuate regularly, as opposed to the IPCC's version of relatively flat CO2 levels prior to widespread industrialization - such a
CO2 flatline has never existed.

Either way, take the time to review this information - information that was provided in another form earlier:

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf

 

[k2skier]

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.

yeah d d d d definitely the polar ice cap. fucking feeble-minded moron.

I'll use small words so you can understand, the North pole (and the majority of all other ice and glaciers) is melting, the South pole is holding steady, depending on what years one picks for comparison, the South pole can show an increase, but overall (sea) ice is melting away.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Friend, our mistake is in dealing with AGW soap-boxers as though this was a scientific debate.

We have to identify them as neuotic babblers, and realize that it is not facts and time that will cure them. In an old routine, Mel Brooks as a psychiatrist cures a patient’s compulsion to form paper-dolls by saying, “Don’t tear paper.”

Treat them in the same way. Calmly tell them "Don't believe nonsense."

Exposing their outright lies and distortions makes them scurry like cockroaches from the light. I already know there's nothing that is going to convince them they are blind believers of a fast failing religion. I have no delusions that truth and reason have any effect on them.

Truth and reason?

Every scientific society on the planet agrees with us, and the facts are irrefutable. CO2 causes the earth to retain heat, and we have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

Still waiting on you to refute that.

Still waiting for you to answer the question I asked earlier, which indicates that you know that BIG GREEN dictates energy policy in this country , not big oil.

But the bigger problem is of a personal nature, shall we say mental, and your need is for a sense of importance, I'm going to help you, by dedicating a poem that might help you overcome this obsession with global warming:

For Chriss, Huggy, and the rest of their posse, by Jesse Jackson:
I Am
Somebody
I Am
Somebody
I May Be Poor
But I Am
Somebody
I May Be Young
But I Am
Somebody
I May Be On Welfare
But I Am
Somebody
I May Be Small
But I Am
Somebody
I May Make A Mistake
But I Am
Somebody
My Clothes Are Different
My Face Is Different
My Hair Is Different
But I Am
Somebody
I Am Black
Brown
White
I Speak A Different Language
But I Must Be Respected
Protected
Never Rejected
I Am
God's Child
I Am
Somebody


Retrieved from "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/I_Am_-_Somebody"

 

[k2skier]

Someone must own some oil stock....

Did you take five minutes to read the statement of the Princeton University physics professor?

The one released July 10th 2002, yes; where he quotes "I am not a climatologist", "concerned citizen...personal views", "Let me state clearly where I probably agree with the other witnesses. We have been in a period of global warming over the past 200 years, but there have been several periods, like the last 10 years, (remember this was released in 2002, before 4 of the warmest years on record were observed)..."

He's not a climatologist, and it's his personal views; this is the guy you want to base your claims on? Wow.

 

[Sinatra]

Exposing their outright lies and distortions makes them scurry like cockroaches from the light. I already know there's nothing that is going to convince them they are blind believers of a fast failing religion. I have no delusions that truth and reason have any effect on them.

Truth and reason?

Every scientific society on the planet agrees with us, and the facts are irrefutable. CO2 causes the earth to retain heat, and we have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

Still waiting on you to refute that.

Yet another overly broad generalization that either intentionally or by accident, leaves out the actual facts on this subject. The 380ppm CO2 value that has been assigned to today has been bested a number of times in relatively recent history - the overall average in the 19th Century was approximately 321ppm. The 20th Century was 338ppm. The highest 20the Century reading was in 1942 when CO2 rose to just over 420ppm. As such, our current CO2 levels are considerably lower than they were approximately 70 years ago - though it should be noted CO2 levels can and do fluctuate regularly, as opposed to the IPCC's version of relatively flat CO2 levels prior to widespread industrialization - such a
CO2 flatline has never existed.

Either way, take the time to review this information - information that was provided in another form earlier:

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf

,,,

 

[k2skier]

Exposing their outright lies and distortions makes them scurry like cockroaches from the light. I already know there's nothing that is going to convince them they are blind believers of a fast failing religion. I have no delusions that truth and reason have any effect on them.

Truth and reason?

Every scientific society on the planet agrees with us, and the facts are irrefutable. CO2 causes the earth to retain heat, and we have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

Still waiting on you to refute that.

Still waiting for you to answer the question I asked earlier, which indicates that you know that BIG GREEN dictates energy policy in this country , not big oil.

But the bigger problem is of a personal nature, shall we say mental, and your need is for a sense of importance, I'm going to help you, by dedicating a poem that might help you overcome this obsession with global warming:

For Chriss, Huggy, and the rest of their posse, by Jesse Jackson:
I Am
Somebody
I Am
Somebody
I May Be Poor
But I Am
Somebody
I May Be Young
But I Am
Somebody
I May Be On Welfare
But I Am
Somebody
I May Be Small
But I Am
Somebody
I May Make A Mistake
But I Am
Somebody
My Clothes Are Different
My Face Is Different
My Hair Is Different
But I Am
Somebody
I Am Black
Brown
White
I Speak A Different Language
But I Must Be Respected
Protected
Never Rejected
I Am
God's Child
I Am
Somebody


Retrieved from "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/I_Am_-_Somebody"

Here's one article.

Global Warming Deniers Well Funded | Newsweek Project Green | Newsweek.com

And another.

Newsweek Hides Global Warming Denier's Ties To Big Oil - Democratic Underground

Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC. His research may be funded entirely by the government, but Lindzen himself -- his kids' college tuition, his mortgage payments -- have at least in part been funded by Big Oil and Big Coal, including OPEC for crying out loud!

And yet another.

ExxonMobil | Center for Investigative Reporting

Núñez’s contention is backed up by lobbying reports on file with the California Secretary of State. Those records don’t show precisely how much each company spent trying to modify or scuttle AB 32, but they do show that the world’s biggest oil companies lobbied on the bill, and that they poured millions of dollars into lobbying efforts during the months lawmakers were debating the merits of AB 32. Big spenders include ExxonMobil ($280,921); Shell ($1,182,717); Chevron ($1,832,467); and an industry trade group, the Western States Petroleum Association ($6,712,215).

 

[Chris]

Exposing their outright lies and distortions makes them scurry like cockroaches from the light. I already know there's nothing that is going to convince them they are blind believers of a fast failing religion. I have no delusions that truth and reason have any effect on them.

Truth and reason?

Every scientific society on the planet agrees with us, and the facts are irrefutable. CO2 causes the earth to retain heat, and we have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

Still waiting on you to refute that.

Yet another overly broad generalization that either intentionally or by accident, leaves out the actual facts on this subject. The 380ppm CO2 value that has been assigned to today has been bested a number of times in relatively recent history - the overall average in the 19th Century was approximately 321ppm. The 20th Century was 338ppm. The highest 20the Century reading was in 1942 when CO2 rose to just over 420ppm. As such, our current CO2 levels are considerably lower than they were approximately 70 years ago - though it should be noted CO2 levels can and do fluctuate regularly, as opposed to the IPCC's version of relatively flat CO2 levels prior to widespread industrialization - such a
CO2 flatline has never existed.

Either way, take the time to review this information - information that was provided in another form earlier:

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf

Now you are just being silly....

 

[Old Rocks]

Exposing their outright lies and distortions makes them scurry like cockroaches from the light. I already know there's nothing that is going to convince them they are blind believers of a fast failing religion. I have no delusions that truth and reason have any effect on them.

Truth and reason?

Every scientific society on the planet agrees with us, and the facts are irrefutable. CO2 causes the earth to retain heat, and we have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

Still waiting on you to refute that.

Yet another overly broad generalization that either intentionally or by accident, leaves out the actual facts on this subject. The 380ppm CO2 value that has been assigned to today has been bested a number of times in relatively recent history - the overall average in the 19th Century was approximately 321ppm. The 20th Century was 338ppm. The highest 20the Century reading was in 1942 when CO2 rose to just over 420ppm. As such, our current CO2 levels are considerably lower than they were approximately 70 years ago - though it should be noted CO2 levels can and do fluctuate regularly, as opposed to the IPCC's version of relatively flat CO2 levels prior to widespread industrialization - such a
CO2 flatline has never existed.

Either way, take the time to review this information - information that was provided in another form earlier:

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf

Complete and total BS. Here is the reality of the increase in CO2 for the last 200 years.

How Much of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Accumulation Is Anthropogenic?

How Much of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Accumulation Is Anthropogenic?
By Gary W. Harding
Global warming has become a contentious issue. This debate is primarily a clash between science and economics. The natural laws of gas chemistry and the greenhouse effect are scientifically understood. The dominant greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide. Regardless of the source, it is clear from direct measurements and proxy data that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by about 80 parts per million over the last 200 years. The greenhouse effect from this added carbon dioxide has produced a positive forcing of about one degree centigrade upon mean global surface temperature. This temperature increase, in turn, is expected to produce climate change.

 

[Old Rocks]

Access : Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica : Nature

The recent completion of drilling at Vostok station in East Antarctica has allowed the extension of the ice record of atmospheric composition and climate to the past four glacial–interglacial cycles. The succession of changes through each climate cycle and termination was similar, and atmospheric and climate properties oscillated between stable bounds. Interglacial periods differed in temporal evolution and duration. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane correlate well with Antarctic air-temperature throughout the record. Present-day atmospheric burdens of these two important greenhouse gases seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years.

 

[Old Rocks]

High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration record 650,000-800,000[thinsp]years before present : Article : Nature

800 kyr.
From the following article:
High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration record 650,000–800,000 years before present

Dieter Lüthi, Martine Le Floch, Bernhard Bereiter, Thomas Blunier, Jean-Marc Barnola, Urs Siegenthaler, Dominique Raynaud, Jean Jouzel, Hubertus Fischer, Kenji Kawamura & Thomas F. Stocker

Nature 453, 379-382(15 May 2008)

doi:10.1038/nature06949