Is Higher CO2 Necessarily Harmful?

Who mentioned AGW....not Roy or me. Who mentioned CO2 - Not Roy or me. So hop on your bike and find somewhere else to peddle your agenda

 

Really? So like it going from "global warming" to "climate change" your sides claim goes from CO2 driving climate to CO2 both driving and following climate... You guys keep using this convoluted circle-think and not only will your theory never be proven wrong, but eventually you will be able to connect everything to CO2... LOL

No one said they were lying, they were just wrong. They jumped the gun, made some theoretical claims before having all the facts, and their assumption was wrong..JUst like today. Same thing just now they have computers they give the incomplete information to, meaning it's compiled faster and they get fancier graphs and charts.

No you are incorrect. CO2 molecules last about 5 years in the atmosphere before they are absorbed by plants, or the oceans. While inside a plant they are converted into sugars and used. In the oceans they are held and goes through a cycle there and eventually released again. While being absorbed into the plants or oceans, CO2 does not "warm the planet" in effect they are a non-factor in the atmosphere.

Even one of your warmer standby sites tells this. The only problem is they pretend that CO2 absorbed in the oceans can somehow effect the atmospheric conditions.. LOL, yes they really do that..Read for yourself..

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm

 

AGW, global warming, CO2, climate change etc. its distinction without difference because you cant answer the question.

 

Which still makes my point. But even then, from what I've seen, and I've read quite a bit, the majority of the time, the CO2 is following temps. Not leading. If you've seen different, great. But from what I've read, they follow the vast majority of the time.

Again, even if sometimes it leads, the fact that it doesn't all the time, suggest the underlining theory is wrong. The theory is pretty straight forward. As CO2 levels increase, the greenhouse effect increases with it, causing temps to rise. Opps.... we have CO2 levels increasing, and temps going down. Fail. Theory is wrong.

There are obviously factors we are not accounting for, if the theory doesn't hold true. And since we don't have those other factors completely documented and understood is it totally impossible that one of those factors holds a far greater impact than anything CO2 related? Yes or no, is that completely impossible?

Actually I got this from a number of people who worked for the IPCC, and you likely know who I'm talking about. Now if they are wrong, fine. But I wasn't there, and didn't see those magazines.

CO2 is not constantly being created naturally, and constantly being consumed naturally? Just like water is constantly being evaporated into the air, and rained out? And how do you know it can't be adsorbed as fast as it is created? On what basis do you make this claim? We don't even understand how most of the natural carbon sinks work, let alone has fast they work.

Neither have you. Thanks for stopping by. Have a nice day.

 

Well one of the issues is, the bias of the people involved.

Cigarette companies don't think that smoking causes cancer. Why do we not take that at face value?
Automakers says regulations will hurt automakers. Why do we not take that at face value?
Casino companies say gambling addictions is not a big problem, and isn't worth worrying about. Why do we not take that at face value?

Climate Scientists who are paid to research AGW, are saying that AGW is real.....

I'm shocked. Aren't you? If anything, I'm surprised the number isn't 100%. You realize that Dr. Mann, who was part of the IPCC 1998 report, has received over $6 Million dollars? And that's just the money we know he's gotten.

Do you think he would ever recant his belief that AGW is real? No matter what evidence he got? This got him international notoriety, and millions.

We spend roughly $7 Billion a year on AGW, in government grants. That may not sound like much, but that's enough money to pay 70,000 'scientists' $100,000 a year. And most of those scientists already have full time jobs. This is money on top of that to fund their research.

Now I'm not suggesting these scientists are milking the system, to drive around in Lexus luxury cars, on the government dime. (although there is evidence that some do). But the fact is, you don't bite the hand the feeds you.

Government doesn't want to pay out millions for research that says "AGW is not real, and all the billions government has spent is wasteful and pointless". So what do you think is going to happen if scientist X comes up with such a paper? He loses his funding, and is instantly no longer a "climate scientists", and thus his opinion is no longer counted. Then we're shocked that 99% of "climate scientists" say AGW is real?

This is like a Muslim who told me that all Islamic scholars agree that the Qur'an is 100% accurate. I mentioned a few that said there were errors in the Qur'an, that were contradicted by historical evidence. He said that they were no longer Muslim, and thus their opinion was tainted and wrong.

Any time you eliminate the opposing opinion, you shouldn't be surprised you have a high percentage of adherence, and that includes "climate scientists".

And by the way.... I'm not suggesting that all scientists are evil, or corrupt. There is a natural bias to almost anything. Which scientists do you think are attracted to "Climate Science" work? Those who disagree with AGW? Or those who are already completely convinced there is a problem, and want to try and fix it?

If you don't believe in gambling in general, are you going to get a job at a casino? Or try and open your own casino? Or try and make slop machines for the casino? Of course not.

If you know that most Climate Science is based on AGW, and you don't believe in AGW.... are you going to go into Climate Science?

There's a natural bias, even without the money incentive. And yet we know there is a money incentive.

And the history of AGW is also very checkered too. A lot of people don't know this, but prior too the late 1970s, there was very little government money in climate science. Prior to, climate scientists were debating whether or not the change in global temps was due to changes in the Suns energy output.

But something changed. Margaret Thatcher in the 80s, wanted to move Briton off of coal, because of the Coal Miners Union, which was going on strikes. To do this, She wanted a reason to use Nuclear power. Thatcher saw the theory that CO2 was driving global warming, as a convenient excuse to use Nuclear power, and move away from coal, thus de-clawing the Miners Unions.

Thatcher offered grants to the scientific community to prove their theory of AGW. Literally within a month, the scientific community went from debating the effects of changes in the Sun on global temps, to claiming that man made CO2 was the cause of global temperature rises. Not even debating it, but claiming it was fact.

Now, as to the particulate matter.... you are correct. In fact, you are entirely correct. There are literally THOUSANDS of factors that effect the global temps on the Earth. Particulate matter is one of many. And those factors all have varying effects. And here's the real kicker..... we understand very very very few of them. In fact even the few we know much about, will still have massive debates about how much effect they actually create.

The biggest problem in science today is that we routinely drastically over estimate how much we actually know. We don't know half of a fraction as much as we like to think we do.

The only reason we are so convinced that we know for certain that AGW is real, is because government is paying out the cash, and there's a industry interests that making money off of this. Tesla Motors is a perfect example. $500 Million in government money for clean energy cars? Not to mention the yearly additional carbon credits they get, and sell to other car manufactures for about $12 Million a year.

And even though I'm against the government taxing poor people to give super wealthy CEOs 'government grants', I'm all in favor of them making electric cars. But let's not deny the fact that the only reason people are even considering buying the equivalent of a Toyota Avalon for double the price, without a gas engine, but with a 200-250 mile range limit, and a 34-hour recharge time... is only because of this AGW stuff driving the industry. I would bet you nearly anything, that if AGW didn't exist, neither would Tesla Motors. Again, I think all this is fun stuff (although I still shouldn't be taxed to give rich fat cats money to build it).

There is big money to be made in AGW.

 

Not sure if I follow that. At face value yes, it seems like million tons of kerosene is a lot. But comparative to the atmosphere, that's like peeing in the ocean, and saying you might have wiped out all whales with your contamination.

We're talking fractions of factions, of what the atmosphere has a barely even calculable reduction in burnt kerosene.... is going to change the temperatures by 4º ? You'd have to back that up with a ton more evidence... because if that caused that big of a change, and 4º is absolutely massive, then we should be seeing 20º to 40º swings in global temps every single year. If China's GDP increases half a percentage, that changes fuel usage by trillions of barrels of oil. That should then change the temps by dozens of degrees.

I don't think anyone can make that claim.

 

Excellent post Andeluson summing it up nicely . I think this puts it well too though.

 

Scientists said cigarettes cause cancer, Tobacco companies hired people to say they didn't.
Scientists said Automobiles needed safety regulation, auto companies said they didn't
Scientists said gambling addiction is a big problem, Casinos hired people to say it wasn't
Scientists said carbon dioxide is causing global warming, oil and coal companies hired people to say it doesn't.

It's ludicrous to say that scientists have a big money stake in global warming research, and oil and coal companies are only interested in the truth.

 

Yuh think ? Why then has funding for this increased over 50 fold since it was invented during half of which period there wasnt any warming at all !

These are US only figures

1989 $134 million

2009 $7,420 million

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/

Thats rather more than a year on year inflation increase !

Always follow the money

 

Unscientific nonsense. The equilibrium just moves to a different position. There is no reason to expect weather to turn "nasty," unless by "nasty" you just mean "rainier."

They've shifted in the past. There's no way of knowing how they would shift in the future absent anthropogenic CO2. Everyone wants things to stay the same, but they aren't going to stay the same no matter what we do.

 

And the way one gets to be "called" a climate scientist is by jumping on the AGW bandwagon...

I suspect they know less than they claim.

Garbage. The preceding 1910-1940 warming period was also accompanied by increased particulates, but temperatures rose.

Contrails are not particulates.

And the people who study it for a living know their living depends on their Chicken Little routine.

 

Not really. The oceanic reservoir dominates.

Cloud cover is NOT a constant. It is an enigma. The problem is that water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas, and warms the earth, but as soon as that vapor condenses to form clouds, it is an equally powerful albedo booster, and cools the earth. Cloud formation is not understood at any more than the most basic level, but because of this double-whammy negative feedback effect, it drives global temperature in a way that we don't know how to model.

Non sequitur question begging. You merely claim and assume it's the build-up of CO2 that is raising temps. But the evidence for that claim is actually quite thin.

It's not H2O, granted, because there is already so much of it in the atmosphere. But it might be cloud formation, moderated somehow by solar activity.

Enough to recognize bogus science when I see it.

 

Studies show that plant life becomes more water efficient with higher CO2 levels.

 

I don't buy the premise of man-made global warming, regardless.

 

Yes thermodynamics is unscientific nonsense......sure yep what ever you say

 

This is the old argument of, "Doesn't CO2 make make more plants grow and won't increased levels just give us more plants?". CO2 is, indeed, necessary for plant respiration (in the daytime only, it reverses and puts out oxygen at night) BUT it is not, AFAIK, a nutrient to the plant. The plants aren't going to increase growth unless the soil is fertilized and/or the sunlight is increased.

Now there is some increase because CO2 is mainly used to aid photosynthesis, so the plants can more efficiently utilize sunlight, but, in the end, you still have the richness of the soil causing an overall limitation of plant growth. And any that isn't used by plants IS going to go into the atmosphere.

Now, yes, CO2 has varied by pretty wide margins throughout the history of the Earth, but so has the overall temperature and, much more importantly, this has occurred usually over at least hundreds if not thousands or even millions of years, at least not without causing widespread disasters

You simply cannot expect to increase the atmospheric temperature by 5 to 7 degrees over a century and not expect widespread problems. Just the increased storms alone will have a horrorific impact. Think of not just one but 3/5 Sandys or Katrinas followed by several Great Blizzards in the Winter and this happening year after year. And these are only annual changes, we're not talking about Years Without Summers followed by decades long droughts.

It is really worth this much to you to keep the price of your oil stocks high for another year?

 

Why isn't there more focus on fart gas. Seriously! Unlike CO2 which is odorless fart gas stinks and it lingers in the air. Also, unlike breathing CO2 which is air that is exhaled from someone's mouth (which in and of itself is gross) that is still NOTHING compared to breathing the air that is farted out of someone's ass.

 

Plant's don't "reverse" their processes between day and night. LOL,and if they DID, they would be releasing CO2 and not Oxygen. That would be the reverse of what plants do. They take in CO2,and give off O2. Reversing that would be taking in O2 and releasing CO2. Which isn't the case..

Here's a better explanation of what happens with plants at night..

http://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/sleeping-with-plants/

Not sure where you were going with your line of that there, but moving on..

LOL,sorry but that's not really disputing what he said..You are claiming it also depends on the soil, well no kidding. No one said with more CO2 we can grow a fruit tree in pure sand.. All things being equal was kind of assumed there.. And an increased efficiency in photosynthesis would mean less sunlight required to do a given task. Meaning the sun doesn't have to increase output, because the plants are more efficient.

Not sure what you were trying to make a point of there..

LOL,the temperature hasn't increased 5 to 7 degrees in a century dude... The higher estimate is about 1.6 degrees Celsius in the last 180 years.. Get a grip..

Really? I almost believed you were genuine too... Ya had to ruin with that..

 

I notice some denialists here obsess on my use of the word "acidic" in discussing the effect of increasing CO2 on our marine environment. Does carbonic acid ring a bell? Denialists always seem to find diversionary meaningless matters to take the conversation off track. I didn't invent the word acidic, experts who study the matter employ that term. It's obviously a relative term as in more acidic than before but like I indicate critical to the denialist mindset is a myriad of obsessions generally inclined finally toward some kind of conspiracy.

Well you will get a good dose of acidic in this article on our marine environment. Read it if you dare.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/10/03

 

Dude using the word "denialists" doesn't make you seem like the kind of person whose word we should take on knowledge.. "Denier" would be the word.. "Denialist" is an idiotic term made up by "warmers".. That's "warmers" not "warmists".. Get it?

And your blog link? LOL, nice touch is it yours?

Tell ya what... You go and prove that ocean acidification works as you and your blog claims. Shouldn't be too hard. All ya gotta do is prove that the oceans continue storing and absorbing more CO2 no matter what their temperature, and that CO2 will be enough to actually make the oceans acidic, and the shell-life, and corals and all the similar life forms, do not break down into base (non-acidic) substances which will combat any rampant acidification, and that the already existing alkali from that same decayed life-matter, does not maintain the oceans PH..

So we can expect you to prove it soon then? LOL

 

Denialist is derived from denialism. As you can see it is universal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

As for the rest, I'll stick with the science. You are welcome to hang on to your denialist thinking.

 

Type the word "denialist" in a google search and all you get for a definition is from wikki-type sites...

https://www.google.com/search?q=denialist

Yep no links in the first 3 pages (that's as far as I cared to check) to any legitimate dictionary, encyclopedia, or even a thesaurus... SO your wikki page has a definition for it? Lets take a look...

ROFL, a fine case of pearls before swine... The word was created by people who want to make disagreeing with their hypothesis or theory, an offense so ridiculous that the offender must be suffering some form of mental problem..

According to wikki... Meaning some other "warmerist" decided since it works for holocaust writers, it can work for climate change too... The fact history shows the holocaust to be a real tragedy, and not a theory or hypothesis based on a theory, doesn't seem to enter into their thought process...

Like MY new word? "WARMERIST" nice huh... Yeah, it's got almost as many syllables as yours does, and it sounds just as ridiculous and made-up.. Since you like to think words are real if they have a wikki or urban dictionary page, I will go and make one right away for my new word..

I think you "warmerists", aren't very bright. Aside from the poor language skills, you guys seem a bit more dim than the average bulb. Almost as if they are suffering from some kind mental incapacity. Like the parts of the brain that govern critical thinking might be damaged somehow... Well that's what my wikki page will say anyway..

Dude, let me know when you have a legitimate source that will support your made-up word..LOL

 

A handy byproduct of this term is that it also smears by word association skeptics which the greatest crime in history and hence make them seem like the very synthesis of evil

 

Pollution is so handy!

 

I fundamentally disagree with you there as would any skeptic