Topic: Global Warming
CO2 Turns Out To Be a Savior Instead of demonizing CO2, production of the chemical is as beneficial as O2.by Kevin Roeten
(conservative)
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Thought to be the demonic cause of anthropogenic global warming, CO2 has literally been taking all the heat lately. With CO2 concentrations pushing the 400 ppm range as of late, manmade global warmers believe they have the perfect scapegoat for dreaded global warming. If they're wrong, then the earth won't fry, there won't be incredulous risings of the sea and torrential floods, and life on earth will not come to a screeching halt.
Christopher Monckton (Brenchley) has written "Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered", which explains CO2 concentrations over the last 6 million years. As a member of the IPCC and APS (American Physical Society), Monckton puts CO2 concentration and temperature on the same scale which few have been able to do. The chart can be found as Figure #7 three quarters into his article, called Fluctuating CO2 But Stable Temperature for 600m Years.
Monckton illuminates how CO2 has fallen and risen many times in the past. From ice core samples, it was determined the Late Ordovician Period of the Paleozoic Era was also an Ice Age, while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher (4400 ppm) than today. The Ordovician Period was the 6th of seven periods in the Paleozoic Era. The 7th period was the Cambrian.
Even in the Cambrian Period of the Paleozoic Era, CO2 was found to be ~7000 ppm (18x higher than today). No anthropogenic global warming was reported. And global warming that did take place went the way of natural sun perturbations, without any human interference. There has been some global warming on several of the planets that have been measurable, but no CO2 producers were caught emitting CO2.
But as CO2 levels have increased in very recent times, so has agricultural productivity and yield. In fact, the world now produces more food on less land than ever before. This can be seen directly from graphs on the USDA Economic Research Service [The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy].
With CO2, chlorophyll, and sunlight all plants and crops create photosynthesis, or make "plant food". Quite simply, the more CO2 that exists, the easier the photosynthesis reaction can take place, and the more crops and vegetation grows and produces.
In fact, it has been determined in Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature... , the total falsehood of claiming temperatures are the result of increasing CO2 concentration. His facts have been proven many times concerning the CO2 increases that existed, which always followed a high temperature. It sometimes lagged temperature by as much as 800 years. But the temperature increase never follows a CO2 increase.
Joe D'Aleo of ICECAP explains how the CO2 has been totally uncorrelated with temperature over the last decade. This is true when the oceans likely play a key role emitting CO2 when they warm as carbonated beverages lose carbonation when they warm, but absorb it when they cool.
It need not be discussed how solar activity always changes in 11 year cycles, or how UV radiation increases much more than brightness which causes increased ozone which directly affects climate, or how sunspots affect cosmic ray production which directly affects cloud formation which directly affects climate.
It also should not be discussed how the sun is a variable star by 0.5%, that goes through cycles sometimes more than 100 years, that the oceans go through multidecadal cycles every 60-70 years which directly affect natural variations in Arctic and Antarctic ice cover, hurricanes, and thus overall weather.
It seems like the Intelligent Designer had all those affects in mind when He made CO2 necessary for plant life, which is necessary for animal life, which is necessary for human life. What an intricate biosystem. And some believe this happened by chance?
The views expressed in this
article are those of Kevin Roeten only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Kevin Roeten is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
You forget that actual facts preclude just having 'credibility'.
It seems that Darwinism has been disproven every time it's been brought up. That's not even including the forever 'missing link'.
Creationism is believable and credible, but dating of actual matter and occurences go back a lot further rthan 6000 years.
And then you get to "Intelligent Design". Unless you're a firm believer of 'everything from nothing' from the Big Bang, it's the only feasible theory left.
Of course, it's difficuly to give your response any credibility at all when 'sentance' is spelled how it is. Better luck next time...
The difference is I ask for no credibility in my comment. Typo or otherwise.
You on the other hand put forth an unfounded un-proveable argument and expect acceptance based on your faith. Reason doesn't need divine intervention to believe it. You fail.
So we're in agreement that your comment has no credibility.
If you actually read the whole column, and accessed all the links, you would find only facts. Not un-proveable arguments. There was nothing based on faith. Only three theories based on facts determined to date. Reason involves believing the theory with the most facts behind it---something you obviously did not do.
Your failure to discern facts is being way too kind.
Excuse me Mike, but isn't Global Warming or Climate Change or Global Cooling, whatever may be in fashion today based on an "unfounded un-proveable argument". Politicians love carbon because they can tax the hell out of it, even though there is absolutely no correlation between levels of CO2 and temperature.
BTW, reason would leave me to believe that Intelligent Design is not out of the realm of possibilities.
...the rest of the story.Climate is changing and always will.The climate celebrities, however, are linking climate and the economy.Yes, there has been warming to end the Pleistocene.Climate is a multiple input, multiple loop, multiple output, complex system.The facts and the hypotheses, however, do not support CO2 as a serious 'pollutant'. In fact, it is plant fertilizer and seriously important to all life on the planet.It is the red herring used to unwind our economy.That issue makes the science relevant.
Sulphate from volcanoes can have a catastrophic effect, but water vapour is far more important.Water vapour (0.4% overall by volume in air, but 1 – 4 % near the surface) is the most effective green house blanket followed by methane (0.0001745%).The third ranking gas is CO2 (0.0383%), and it does not correlate well with global warming or cooling either; in fact, CO2 in the atmosphere trails warming which is clear natural evidence for its well-studied inverse solubility in water:CO2 dissolves rapidly in cold water and bubbles rapidly out of warm water. The equilibrium in seawater is very high; making seawater a great 'sink'; CO2 is 34 times more soluble in water than air is soluble in water.
CO2 has been rising and Earth and her oceans have been warming.However, the correlation trails.Correlation, moreover, is not causation. The causation is under scientific review, however, and while the radiation from the sun varies only in the fourth decimal place, the magnetism is awesome.
“Using a box of air in a Copenhagen lab, physicists traced the growth of clusters of molecules of the kind that build cloud condensation nuclei. These are specks of sulphuric acid on which cloud droplets form. High-energy particles driven through the laboratory ceiling by exploded stars far away in the Galaxy - the cosmic rays - liberate electrons in the air, which help the molecular clusters to form much faster than climate scientists have modeled in the atmosphere. That may explain the link between cosmic rays, cloudiness and climate change.”
As I understand it, the hypothesis of the Danish National Space Center goes as follows:
Quiet sun allows the geomagnetic shield to drop.Incoming galactic cosmic ray flux creates more low-level clouds, more snow, and more albedo effect as more is heat reflected resulting in a colder climate.
Active sun has an enhanced magnetic field which induces Earth’s geomagnetic shield response.Earth has fewer low-level clouds, less rain, snow and ice, and less albedo (less heat reflected) producing a warmer climate.
That is how the bulk of climate change works, coupled with (modulated by) sunspot peak frequency there are cycles of global warming and cooling like waves in the ocean. When the waves are closely spaced, all the planets warm; when the waves are spaced farther apart, all the planets cool.
The change in cloud cover is only a small percentage, and the ultimate cause of the solar magnetic cycle may be cyclicity in the Sun-Jupiter centre of gravity.We await more on that.
Although the post 60s warming period appears to be over, it has allowed the principal green house gas, water vapour, to kick in with more humidity, clouds, rain and snow depending on where you live to provide the negative feedback that scientists use to explain the existence of complex life on Earth for 550 million years.Ancient sedimentary rocks and paleontological evidence indicate the planet has had abundant liquid water over the entire span.The planet heats and cools naturally and our gasses are the thermostat.Nothing unusual going on except for the Orwellian politics.
Check the web site of the Danish National Space Center.
Yeah, you had my attention on the science, but you kinda blew your credibility with the Intelligent Designer commentary.
That notwithstanding, I do agree with much of what else you said, CO2 is a plant food, the heat of the planet is necessarily only dependant upon the sun's heating of it (and a bit of its own internal heat). I cannot see where the quiescent temperature of the earth can be higher than what it receives from the sun. I suspect a fundamental physics disconnect in the global warming theories.
And BTW, notice how it is not global warming anymore, but climate change theory. A new moniker that proves too much; there has always been climate change, so what does it mean? What temperature is "most natural", so that we should not affect it?
Imagine having tried to sell the public at large with the "climate change" scare. Climate change doesn't even imply which direction of change, or whether it will more or less comfortable. But the new moniker provides flexibility, and insulation from egg-on-face syndrome. Wait till the next few years present as colder than usual, "global warming", which at least said something, had to be sumsumed into the meaningless "climate change".
Perhaps you aren't thinking quite as well as you think! I believe you are right with a fundamental disconnect in the global warming theories. The sun does provide all of our energy. None of it comes from CO2. Besides, CO2 is only 3% of our atmosphere. Most of any global warming comes from the major constituent--water vapor.
Climate change has been known to vary with the sun for millions of years. With the sun being a variable star (0.5%), we will ALWAYS have climate change.
If "Intelligent Design" lost you, you are evidently not believing far enough back to the "Big Bang". Why some are believing that the Creation of everything came from nothing. What started things off.
If you have any questions about any of those happenings, I'll be glad to answer them...
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
