CO2 Concentrations Hit Highest Levels in 3 Million Years

           

https://disqus.com/home/d..._million_years/

"Carbon and CO2 (carbon dioxide) are fundamental for all life on Earth. CO2 is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas. CO2 is product of our breathing, and is used in numerous common applications like fire extinguishers, baking soda, carbonated drinks, life jackets, cooling agent, etc. Plants' photosynthesis consume CO2 from the air when the plants make their carbohydrates, which bring the CO2 back to the air again when the plants rot or are being burned."

- Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, University of Oslo

"To suddenly label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant."

- Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University

"C02 is not a pollutant as Gore infers. It is, in fact essential to life on the planet. Without it there are no plants, therefore no oxygen and no life. At 385 ppm current levels the plants are undernourished. The geologic evidence shows an average level of 1000 ppm over 600 million years. Research shows plants function most efficiently at 1000-2000 ppm. Commercial greenhouses use the information and are pumping C02 to these levels and achieve four times the yield with educed water use. At 200 ppm, the plants suffer seriously and at 150 ppm, they begin to die. So if Gore achieves his goal of reducing C02 he will destroy the planet."

- Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Climatology

"Many chemicals are absolutely necessary for humans to live, for instance oxygen. Just as necessary, human metabolism produces by-products that are exhaled, like carbon dioxide and water vapor. So, the production of carbon dioxide is necessary, on the most basic level, for humans to survive. The carbon dioxide that is emitted as part of a wide variety of natural processes is, in turn, necessary for vegetation to live. It turns out that most vegetation is somewhat 'starved' for carbon dioxide, as experiments have shown that a wide variety of plants grow faster, and are more drought tolerant, in the presence of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind's activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity. In short, carbon dioxide is a natural part of our environment, necessary for life, both as 'food' and as a by-product."

- Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, Former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA

"I am at a loss to understand why anyone would regard carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Carbon dioxide, a natural gas produced by human respiration, is a plant nutrient that is beneficial both for people and for the natural environment. It promotes plant growth and reforestation. Faster-growing trees mean lower housing costs for consumers and more habitat for wild species. Higher agricultural yields from carbon dioxide fertilization will result in lower food prices and will facilitate conservation by limiting the need to convert wild areas to arable land."

- David Deming, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless trace gas that actually sustains life on this planet. Consider the simple dynamics of human energy acquisition, which occurs daily across the globe. We eat plants directly, or we consume animals that have fed upon plants, to obtain the energy we need. But where do plants get their energy? Plants produce their own energy during a process called photosynthesis, which uses sunlight to combine water and carbon dioxide into sugars for supporting overall growth and development. Hence, CO2 is the primary raw material that plants depend upon for their existence. Because plants reside beneath animals (including humans) on the food chain, their healthy existence ultimately determines our own. Carbon dioxide can hardly be labeled a pollutant, for it is the basic substrate that allows life to persist on Earth."

- Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany

"To classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant is thus nothing short of scientific chicanery, for reasons that have nothing to do with science, but based purely on the pseudo-science so eagerly practiced by academia across the world in order to keep their funding sources open to the governmental decrees, which are in turn based on totally false IPCC dogma (yes, dogma - not science)."

- Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemist

"Atmospheric CO2 is required for life by both plants and animals. It is the sole source of carbon in all of the protein, carbohydrate, fat, and other organic molecules of which living things are constructed. Plants extract carbon from atmospheric CO2 and are thereby fertilized. Animals obtain their carbon from plants. Without atmospheric CO2, none of the life we see on Earth would exist. Water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide are the three most important substances that make life possible. They are surely not environmental pollutants."

- Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry


"CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality."

- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, MIT

"CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet."

- John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain - literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and science."

- Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. It's axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view, climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. It has the additional glamour of being international and therefore appeals to those who favor world governance over national sovereignty. Therefore, labeling carbon dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority for EPA as a first step in that direction."

- S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

"To state in public that carbon dioxide is a pollutant is a public advertisement of a lack of basic school child science. Pollution kills, carbon dioxide leads to the thriving of life on Earth and increased biodiversity. Carbon dioxide is actually plant food."

- Ian R. Plimer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne


Why do you continue to post that fake graph using data from Scotese. Your dishonesty is showing Bushboy....

Scotese is an expert in reconstructions of continental positions through time and in creating his ‘temperature reconstruction’ he is basically following an old-fashioned idea (best exemplified by Frakes et al’s 1992 textbook) that the planet has two long-term stable equilibria (‘warm’ or ‘cool’) which it has oscillated between over geologic history. This kind of heuristic reconstruction comes from the qualitative geological record which gives indications of glaciations and hothouses, but is not really adequate for quantitative reconstructions of global mean temperatures. Over the last few decades, much better geochemical proxy compilations with better dating have appeared (for instance, Royer et al (2004)) and the idea that there are only two long-term climate states has long fallen by the wayside.

http://disq.us/url?url=ht...p;cuid=3677626" rel="nofollow noopener" title="http://www.realclimate.org/" target="_blank" class='link_art' rel='nofollow' >http://www.realclimate.or...ealclimate.org/...



The Black Hole Of Climate Science

https://disq.us/url?url=h...p;cuid=3677626" rel="nofollow noopener" title="https://realclimatescience.com" target="_blank" class='link_art' rel='nofollow' >https://realclimatescienc...matescience.com

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.

Richard P. Feynman

Last Monday in Los Alamos, I attended a lecture about black holes and gravity waves given by Nobel laureate Kip Thorne. He detailed the long history of this research going back to Einstein and Oppenheimer. As he described it, they were extremely careful about interpreting LIGO gravity wave measurements, and when they first detected one (after 20 years of searching) they were very skeptical, and even suspected someone had hacked the data as a prank.

Compare vs. climate science, where they intentionally hack their own data to achieve the results they want.

Imagem rel="nofollow noopener" title="https://uploads.disquscdn.c" target="_blank">https://uploads.disquscdn.c" alt="Imagem" height="42%" width="42%">...

Imagem rel="nofollow noopener" title="https://uploads.disquscdn.c" target="_blank">https://uploads.disquscdn.c" alt="Imagem" height="42%" width="42%">...

Some Interesting ClimateGate E-Mail Comments:

One researcher foresaw some very troubling consequences: “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably…”

https://disq.us/url?url=h...p;cuid=3677626" rel="nofollow noopener" title="https://www.forbes.com/site" target="_blank" class='link_art' rel='nofollow' >https://www.forbes.com/si...forbes.com/site...


You call him an expert in reconstruction and say he is good, but there is something new that is better, according to you. Is it better because it models something you like? Almost all modeling is unreliable, so it's a crap shoot cherry-pickers game.

Two climate change stories ago I joked that Big Bird might be the next spokesperson for catastrophic climate change, after George Clooney and jimmy Kimmel was unsuccessful. And sure enough, Bill Nye appears. He is more of a Sesame Street character than Big Bird. When you step into your global warming team huddle, what's it like to look around and see Wombosi and Natureboi and a dozen other kooks making claims about droughts and hurricanes and all the worlds ice melting and other alarmist claims? Do you ever want to shout at them and say fellas, seriously, we really need to focus on some actual science here. Anybody with me? Anybody?


More than half of the world's population lives either on the coast or within a hundred miles of it. Rising ocean levels due to increased melting of ice of Greenland and Antarctica is a serious concern for all of those people.

We know how much ice there is on the planet today. We can measure it from satellites in space. If all of that ice were to melt because of the increased temperatures our fossil fuel use is resulting in...

That is 61 feet higher than today's ocean levels.

Historic cities like Venice, gone. Amsterdam, gone. London, gone, New Orleans, Miami, Shanghai, all of them just gone.

That's trillions of dollars in real estate just.... gone.


- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere are only at 0.04% (400ppm) (Source)

14 CFR § 91.17 - Alcohol or drugs.
(a) No person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of a civil aircraft -
....
(4) While having an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater in a blood or breath specimen. Alcohol concentration means grams of alcohol per deciliter of blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.
https://disq.us/url?url=h...p;cuid=3677626" rel="nofollow noopener" title="https://www.law.cornell.edu" target="_blank" class='link_art' rel='nofollow' >https://www.law.cornell.e...law.cornell.edu...

Would you allow your loved ones to be flown across the country by someone with a BAC level of only .04%. The government says NO. What do you say?


You should find this amusing. After looking throughout the internet for science driven data confirming catastrophic (or massive in your case) global warming, Dr. Wombosi ended up choosing George Clooney and Jimmy Kimmel as his top choice as ambassadors of doom and gloom in his recent forum.

Here is the great part; He cried like a little girl when he was shown how silly he is and how uninformed he is, despite his claims of being a teacher of science. His answer to debating the topic and proving his claims was similar to Al Gore. He declared it was his responsibility not to debate but rather to block others who present science that questions alarmist dogma. He even went to the mods to ask them to delete my comments. This sounds a lot like what Skeptical Science does on it's web site. Pathetic.

Discussion on Duck's Den

"Burning Bush" Flagged as Spam

The Unfuqwiffable Dr. Wombosi

"Few hundred lines of CCP text between the two of you if i recall. "

One was ~20 lines, the other ~10. Both were excerpts just big enough to relate the message. So no, not anywhere near "few hundred" or even a fraction of "between the two" of us.

"[...] but you seem to give just as much as you receive [...]"

Again, the point of Wombosi's flags was not THAT he made these posts - and the discussions starter was beyond explicit on this point - but the fact that he intentionally posted them as a direct response to the discussion.

Since the discussion was about a comedy skit and not about the science behind AGW, his posts are by definition spam. That is just going by the basic definition. More importantly, he is trying to hijack the thread for his own purposes.

Look at it this way: If you allow a poster to answer anything anywhere in thread (i.e. not where it belongs as an answer), you allow people to destroy the entire point and logic behind a threaded view, as well as any semblance or "on-topic" discussion. In short, you open all threads to vandalism by off-topic spam.


I think it's cute you look to NASA for honest climate science that isn't politically driven. If only it were true.

NASA SCIENTISTS REBEL AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING HYSTERIA
https://disq.us/url?url=h...p;cuid=3677626" rel="nofollow noopener" title="https://www.powerlineblog.c" target="_blank" class='link_art' rel='nofollow' >https://www.powerlineblog...powerlineblog.c...

fifty former NASA employees signed this letter to Charles Bolden, NASA’s Administrator:

Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)


10º

The problem of getting mass acceptance is multi-faceted. Most agree that global warming is happening. Fewer agree that humans are the primary cause of it. Even fewer agree that global warming is a problem that must be fixed in the first place. And even fewer agree that mankind can fix it by throwing more money or more costly regulation at it.

Our current energy usage, waste, and pollution as a species are a major problem for humanity, and for the planet. Current practices regarding these subjects are a long way removed from being good stewardship of the one planet we know of that supports human life. But if a 30-80 cm rise in sea levels is a major problem for you, then you built too darn close to the ocean. There are plenty of studies that show a couple of degree rise in global temperature can also have some net positive effects, such a dramatic rise in crop yields, longer growing and shipping seasons, and reduced energy usage for conditioning air. And frankly, I don't see why evolutionists should have such a problem with it. Adapt or die, survival of the fittest and all that jazz.

Personally I couldn't care less about whether or not global warming is happening, is caused by humans, or that it's a problem humans need to fix (if they can). My concern is about the stewardship of the planet, and our excessive consumer wastefulness. The use, abuse, and dispose of mentality of most consumers, the designed obsolescence of products, and the need to have the latest greatest newest and biggest instead of being satisfied with the stuff you have that works perfectly fine, are much bigger (and much easier) problems to address.


+