Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cutting Carbon Dioxide Isnít Enough (Double Facepalm!)
Slate ^ | 5-13-2013 | Lawrence Krauss

Posted on 05/14/2013 5:15:51 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot

According to data being gathered at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, which has been monitoring atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1958, the CO2 concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere officially exceeded the 400 parts per million mark last week, a value not attained on Earth since humans were first human.

This ominous milestone comes at a time when the evidence that human activity is resulting in unprecedented climate change is now overwhelming. More important, perhaps, even if all greenhouse gas production ceased immediately, this elevated carbon dioxide level would persist in the atmosphere for thousands of years.

(snip)

So in addition to undertaking dramatic global efforts to reduce present and future CO2 emissions, we need a strategy for addressing the carbon already up there. Recently, a broad group of geologists, planetary scientists, climatologists, social scientists, and physicists convened at the Origins Project at Arizona State University, which I direct, to explore such strategies. ......

Extracting CO2 from the atmosphere, even with its current level of 400 ppm, is very different—and in some ways more difficult—than extracting it from flue gas, where the CO2 concentration is much greater. .... First, one removes CO2 from the air by using a sorbent, which is a material that can absorb gasses. Next, the CO2 has to be extracted from the sorbent and sequestered, presumably by pumping it deep underground at relatively high concentration or by binding it to minerals—a bit like how we handle nuclear waste. ...... At present, it is difficult to determine the cost of direct extraction.

(snip)

Given the risks of increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and the difficulty of slowing current production, at the very least some modest government R&D support of this important possible alternative seems appropriate right now to help safeguard our future.

(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Science
KEYWORDS: carbondioxide; climatechangefraud; co2; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; greenpeace; greenspirit; patrickmoore
Subtitle: We have to invest in technology to remove the CO2 already in the atmosphere.

Lawrence M. Krauss is Foundation Professor and Director of the Arizona State University Origins Project. His most recent book is A Universe from Nothing.

*Update, May 13, 2013: The 15 participants in the paper are Lawrence M. Krauss, Kip Hodges, Ariel Anbar, Arjun Helmsath, Sander Van der Leeuw, and Manfred Laubichler of Arizona State University; Wallace Broecker, Klaus S. Lackner, and Scott Barrett of Columbia University; Jeffrey Severinghaus and Ralph Keeling of University of California-San Diego; J. Michael Hall (NOAA, retired); James Anderson of Harvard University; Ray Piierrehumbert of the University of Chicago; and James Hansen (NASA, retired).

1 posted on 05/14/2013 5:15:51 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

We’re all gonna’ die!


2 posted on 05/14/2013 5:17:14 AM PDT by broken_arrow1 (I regret that I have but one life to give for my country - Nathan Hale "Patriot")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

NOTHING is “enough” when you pretend to attack a nonexistent “problem”.


3 posted on 05/14/2013 5:19:13 AM PDT by G Larry (Darkness Hates the Light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

4 posted on 05/14/2013 5:20:27 AM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (I’m not a Republican, I’m a conservative! Pubbies haven't been conservative since before T.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

“We have to invest in technology to remove the CO2 already in the atmosphere.”

I have a prototype of this technology. It kinda resembles a tree but will cost taxpayers significantly more.


5 posted on 05/14/2013 5:20:30 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do uwhen I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
CO2 has been much higher in geological time with no dire consequences.


6 posted on 05/14/2013 5:22:41 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Islam is a religion of peace, and Moslems reserve the right to detonate anyone who says otherwise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

watch this testimony and decide for yourself
http://theolympiareport.com/wwu-scientist-debunks-lawmakers-myths-about-co2-climate-change/


7 posted on 05/14/2013 5:24:09 AM PDT by jyro (French-like Democrats wave the white flag of surrender while we are winning)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
“We have to invest in technology to remove the CO2 already in the atmosphere.” . . . I have a prototype of this technology. It kinda resembles a tree but will cost taxpayers significantly more.

LOL. I have a prototype too. Its a plastic bag you tie over your head to trap CO2 emissions. There are still a few minor kinks I have to work out of it though . . . . .

8 posted on 05/14/2013 5:37:01 AM PDT by Opinionated Blowhard ("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
 photo BOEAN2_zpsa6c757fd.gif
9 posted on 05/14/2013 5:39:01 AM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

Reducing CO2 levels to per-industrial levels would reduce tree growth in the Northern hemisphere by 30% and farming yields by 12 to 13%.

CO2 is plant food.


10 posted on 05/14/2013 5:42:33 AM PDT by listenhillary (Courts, law enforcement, roads and national defense should be the extent of government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

February 2, 2007

Carbon dioxide is good

By Fred Hutchison

Letter to the Editor, The Columbus Dispatch

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant or a greenhouse gas. It is a wholesome, naturally occurring, colorless and odorless gas. In fact, if carbon dioxide suddenly disappeared, at least 99% of the species on earth, including man, would die. Without carbon dioxide, there would be no photosynthesis of green plants, and without photosynthesis, we would have no oxygen to breathe and no food to eat.

Chemists tell us that carbon dioxide molecules retain heat a bit longer than does the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the air. Chemists also tell us that if you combine gasses of different temperature, convection currents will equalize the temperature of the gas molecules. As the air cools during the night, the temperature of the nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide molecules equalize. Therefore, the amount of heat released from the atmosphere into outer space during a twenty four hour cycle would be the same for nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide. Affect on global warming — zero.

Where does carbon dioxide gas in the air come from? 1) Oxidation of living and dead plant and animal life, 2) Volcanoes, and 3) Forest fires. The amount of carbon dioxide coming from industry is immaterial in comparison to these three sources.

Is the earth warming? Yes, the earth is recovering from the “Little Ice Age.” We have enjoyed two centuries of intermittent recovery from the bitter cold which the American Founding Fathers suffered through. However, the warming earth has not yet reached the temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period or the Roman Warm Period. Northern Europe enjoyed bumper crops during the Medieval Warm Period, the population tripled and European civilization revived. Europe had suffering a Dark Age during a time of cooling but civilization revived late in the subsequent warming phase. When a new cycle of global cooling began in the fourteenth century, the mild, relatively stable weather of Europe during the Medieval Warm Period gave way to fierce storms, flooding and famine.

© Fred Hutchison

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hutchison/070202


11 posted on 05/14/2013 5:43:08 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

CO2 is Green... and Green is Good!

More CO2 in the air means more plant growth.
Earth’s current atmospheric CO2 concentration is almost 390 parts per million (ppm). Adding another 300 ppm of CO2 to the air has been shown by literally thousands of experiments to greatly increase the growth or biomass production of nearly all plants. This growth stimulation occurs because CO2 is one of the two raw materials (the other being water) that are required for photosynthesis. Hence, CO2 is actually the “food” that sustains essentially all plants on the face of the earth, as well as those in the sea. And the more CO2 they “eat” (absorb from the air or water), the bigger and better they grow (see table below).

http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?MenuItemID=103


12 posted on 05/14/2013 5:44:39 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

You and I can collaborate on such prototype.

I’ll give it a good name, God tree, and we can apply for grants.


13 posted on 05/14/2013 5:45:56 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

The reprt of 400 ppm CO2 concentration is yet another fraudulent report Slate and the MSM failed to report when it was retracted as an error.

Premature 400 PPM fail-a-bration
Posted on May 13, 2013 by Anthony Watts

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/13/premature-400-ppm-fail-a-bration/


14 posted on 05/14/2013 5:51:36 AM PDT by WhiskeyX (The answer is very simple and easy to understand economics. The U.S. Treasury is printing vast)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo
Where does carbon dioxide gas in the air come from? 1) Oxidation of living and dead plant and animal life, 2) Volcanoes, and 3) Forest fires. The amount of carbon dioxide coming from industry is immaterial in comparison to these three sources.

True, but irrelevant. 1 and 3 are part of the carbon cycle, by which carbon goes in and out of the atmosphere but the total in the ecosystem does not change significantly.

Very much like the hydrologic cycle, by which water changes phase and location but not in quantity.

Fossil fuels are ancient parts of the carbon cycle that got isolated from the ecosystem. When they are burned they increase the total of carbon, not just move it around. Even a slow, gradual increase in a constituent of the atmosphere may eventually result in a significant effect.

There are lots of good arguments for why the "global warming" thing is exaggerated, but this isn't one of them.

15 posted on 05/14/2013 5:56:30 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

I explained this to some graduate students in agriculture. I illustrated this by saying that it is a common practice to fill a green house with c02 to simulate plant growth. They said that proved their point as they wouldn’t want to be in that green house. I shook my head............


16 posted on 05/14/2013 6:06:02 AM PDT by PeterPrinciple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Even a slow, gradual increase in a constituent of the atmosphere may eventually result in a significant effect.

That is the key unproven assumption. No one knows how much is too much and when the effects of human activity may cause real global consequences. All we have are a bunch of computer models made by bombastic scientists, claiming that the end is near.

The other poster was noting that human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is trivial in magnitude compared to natural sources. That is a true statement.

17 posted on 05/14/2013 6:09:42 AM PDT by Cincinatus (Omnia relinquit servare Rempublicam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

So the hydrocarbons in the ground are not part of the ecosystem. How did they get isolated? They were once part of the living flora or fauna that got buried. In geologic time they were certainly part of the ecosystem. We, through their conversion, are bringing them back.

In the distant past CO2 levels have been orders of magnitude higher than today and yet life survived and we are all here.

Hydrocarbons like methane are found in distant heavenly bodies. How did they get there? Methane is a much more powerful green house gas than CO2 and there is a moon out there with a methane atmosphere.

Green house gases are part of the natural universe, and the atmospheric processes here on earth have adjusted to that without our intervention.


18 posted on 05/14/2013 6:11:01 AM PDT by JeanLM (Obama proves melanin is just enough to win elections)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
the 400 parts per million mark last week, a value not attained on Earth since humans were first human.

The last time CO2 was above the 400ppm mark was ... during the years between 1936 and 1948.

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

19 posted on 05/14/2013 6:14:01 AM PDT by agere_contra (I once saw a movie where only the police and military had guns. It was called 'Schindler's List'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus

I agree we don’t fully understand the process. There are no doubt both positive and negative feedback effects and we don’t known which are which.

However, if I have a “churning” of 1T tons of carbon in and out of the atmosphere every year, to pick an arbitrary number, it makes no difference in the concentration. We change the location but not the amount.

Adding a net 1B tons (arbitrary figure) by burning fossil fuels, while an insignificant amount compared to that being churned, is nevertheless significant because it increases the total. Whether that is significant for temperature over the long run remains to be determined, as will whether the effects will on net be positive or negative.

But that the concentration is increasing cannot be effectively disputed, not that the primary cause of the increase is the burning of fossil fuels.


20 posted on 05/14/2013 6:19:10 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX; agere_contra
I followed your link, there is another link in the comment section caught my eyes: (hat/tip: mwhite)

“There is no constant exponential rising CO2-concentration since preindustrial times but a variing CO2-content of air following the climate. E.G. around 1940 there was a maximum of CO2 of at least 420 ppm, before 1875 there was also a maximum.” (Source)

agere_contra also posted the same thing.

21 posted on 05/14/2013 6:19:15 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

“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 of Atmospheric Science, MIT

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not pollution and Global Warming has nothing to do with pollution. The average person has been misled and is confused about what the current Global Warming debate is about, greenhouse gases. None of which has anything to do with air pollution. People are confusing Smog, Carbon Monoxide (CO) and the pollutants in car exhaust with the life supporting, essential trace gas in our atmosphere, Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Pollution is already regulated under the Clean Air Act and regulating Carbon Dioxide (CO2) will do absolutely nothing to make the air you breath “cleaner”. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is actually plant food. They are also misled to believe that CO2 is polluting the oceans through acidification but there is nothing unnatural or unprecedented about current measurements of ocean water pH and a future rise in pCO2 will likely yield growth benefits to corals and other sea life. Thus regulating Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions through either ‘Carbon Taxes’, ‘Cap and Trade’ or the EPA will cause energy prices (electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel, propane, heating oil ect...) to skyrocket.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-pollution.html


22 posted on 05/14/2013 6:19:24 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

We keep getting posts in FR using this source warning the world of doom, gloom, and calamity, and no other source getting these readings. Just where the hell is this place and is its location the reason they’re getting these results ?


23 posted on 05/14/2013 6:21:17 AM PDT by mosesdapoet (Serious contribution pause.Please continue onto meaningless venting no one reads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: broken_arrow1
Greenpeace Co Founder CO2 Is Essential To Life On Earth

Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore: ‘Thank goodness we came along & reversed 150 million-year trend of reduced CO2 levels in global atmosphere. Long live the humans’

24 posted on 05/14/2013 6:21:32 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus

There is a point beyond which CO2 density does not contribute further to the “greenhouse effect”,

that point has long passed, and global temperatures are going down.


25 posted on 05/14/2013 6:22:10 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

June 24, 2009

The regulation of essential elements of life
By Lonnie E. Schubert

The EPA is now considering designating CO2 a dangerous pollutant. The regulation of essential elements of life by our government scares me. It should scare us all. I am devastated by the notion that our own government founded on freedom would regulate and control the most fundamental aspects of life on earth. Regulation on life’s important things is certainly tyranny and certainly will destroy the world, at least the nation and supposed freedom, we leave to our children.

Please, do not regulate the essential elements of life. Freedom is too precious to take it away in such pointless ways.

Carbon dioxide is one of the three essential elements of life on our planet. Despite being arguably THE essential requirement for life, water, sometimes called dihydrogen monoxide, is extremely dangerous, killing even children every year. How much is destroyed every year by floods and rot? Water is by far the most important energy absorbing gas in our atmosphere. Without gaseous water in our air, our earth would be far too cold to support us. The other gasses that absorb energy contribute less than one-fifth of the total effect we refer to as the greenhouse effect. In short, we generally have too much water where we don’t need it and too little where we do. Are you planning to regulate water also? The potential gains are obvious. If we can reduce water waste and control it in the environment, we can eliminate most of the dangers associated with water.

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/archived-articles/../2009/06/the_regulation_of_essential_el.html


26 posted on 05/14/2013 6:23:07 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

Carbon Dioxide is not an environmental polluting agent because it is not detrimental or poisonous to life. Carbon dioxide cannot kill living cells by altering their structure or physiology in the same way, for example, as a snake venom will. It can only suffocate an organism when Oxygen is not present at a sufficient concentration to sustain life.

http://www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_CO2.html


27 posted on 05/14/2013 6:25:32 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

watch thisone too

http://theolympiareport.com/wwu-scientist-debunks-lawmakers-myths-about-co2-climate-change/


28 posted on 05/14/2013 6:37:05 AM PDT by jyro (French-like Democrats wave the white flag of surrender while we are winning)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

Washington
The EPA wants in on the scandal barrage, too

Washington Examiner

Posted: May 14, 2013 9:31 am

Conservative groups seeking information from the Environmental Protection Agency have been routinely hindered by fees normally waived for media and watchdog groups, while fees for more than 90 percent of requests from green groups were waived, according to requests reviewed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

CEI reviewed Freedom of Information Act requests sent between January 2012 and this spring from several environmental groups friendly to the EPA’s mission, and several conservative groups, to see how equally the agency applies its fee waiver policy for media and watchdog groups. Government agencies are supposed to waive fees for groups disseminating information for public benefit.

http://rare.us/story/the-epa-wants-in-on-the-scandal-barrage-too/


29 posted on 05/14/2013 7:52:53 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MrB

AP Video: Obama Wind Energy Agenda Leaves ‘Trail of Dead Eagles’

Obama Admin overrules own experts, gives wind energy pass on eagle killing

http://freebeacon.com/ap-video-obama-wind-energy-agenda-leaves-trail-of-dead-eagles/


30 posted on 05/14/2013 7:58:42 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Exactly right. Homo sapiens has only existed for an eyeblink of geological time.


31 posted on 05/14/2013 10:09:16 AM PDT by SargeK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mosesdapoet

Mauna Loa is a volcano. One of the most active on Earth.

Oh by the way, the reason they monitor CO2 on a volcano is it can give a hint of the risk of eruption. Elevated CO2 is EXPECTED.


32 posted on 05/14/2013 10:30:14 AM PDT by SargeK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

During the period in which the Earth’s second major atmosphere was composed of more than 96 percent or 98 percent CO2 and before the advent of aerobic lifeforms, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 could be described as somewhere in the order 886,000 ppm or 998,000 ppm versus 300 ppm to 400 ppm or a little more in recent ages. What is even more amazing, the Earth’s second atmosphere at that time was upwards of 100 times greater in mass than at present. So, where did all of those gigatons of CO2 go when ti was removed from the Earth’s second atmosphere to create a third atmosphere? Aerobic plant life voraciously ate the CO2 and deposited it into the Earth’s Lithosphere, biospahre or decomposed it into life giving oxygen.

Bottomline, aerobic lifeforms are still voraciously removing CO2 from the Earth’s atmosphere at rates which keep the plant life perpetually on the brink of CO2 deprivation.


33 posted on 05/14/2013 11:20:48 AM PDT by WhiskeyX (The answer is very simple and easy to understand economics. The U.S. Treasury is printing vast)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JeanLM
So the hydrocarbons in the ground are not part of the ecosystem. How did they get isolated?

The chemical energy in petroleum collected from dead saltwater algae and was eventually entombed by Earth because bacteria hadn't yet evolved to eat all the dead algae. One way to reduce natural CO2 emissions is with antibacterials. About 4 ppm chlorine in the ocean water near the equator would shut down most plant food emissions.

34 posted on 05/14/2013 11:40:56 AM PDT by Reeses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
CO2's effect is on the greenhouse effect is logarithmic. The small amount humans contribute will amount to very little additional heat retained by the atmosphere.


35 posted on 05/14/2013 11:55:28 AM PDT by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Even a slow, gradual increase in a constituent of the atmosphere may eventually result in a significant effect.

See my post 35.

36 posted on 05/14/2013 11:57:22 AM PDT by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter

Such statements are just about as poorly based as the IPCC’s pronouncements.

We just don’t know what the effects of 500 ppm and 1000 ppm CO2 will be. There are undoubtedly feedback systems, but we don’t know what all of them are or how they might interact.


37 posted on 05/14/2013 12:00:26 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

We do understand the physics of sunlight interacting with CO2 though. Only 2 wavelenghts of light interact with CO2. When that light’s energy has been absorbed by the CO2 what will cause the additional heating?


38 posted on 05/14/2013 12:02:24 PM PDT by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
Due to the decrease in solar radiation, and the concurrent lower levels of sunspots, we MAY have just saved our asses from a Maunder Minimum mini-ice age.

DO NOT REMOVE THE CO2!!!!!

39 posted on 05/14/2013 12:04:17 PM PDT by Lazamataz ("AP" clearly stands for American Pravda. Our news media has become completely and proudly Soviet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reeses

We shouldn’t by any action reduce or eliminate CO2 in the atmosphere, even if we could, which I doubt is possible. CO2 is the foundation of life. It is the way carbon becomes the stuff algae, and all plants are made of. They become the food for all the rest of us. No CO2 no life.


40 posted on 05/14/2013 12:30:28 PM PDT by JeanLM (Obama proves melanin is just enough to win elections)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: JeanLM

I agree. We don’t have any models that come close to working so we aren’t ready to start mucking with things. In the future people will laugh at the primitive climate models and the left’s attempt to use them to hijack everything. The story of tulip bulb mania will be replaced with global warming mania, and everyone will snicker at the vanity and stupidity of Al Gore and his followers.


41 posted on 05/14/2013 2:24:51 PM PDT by Reeses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
Lawrence Krauss sez: We have to invest in technology to remove the CO2 already in the atmosphere.

Just plant some more trees, dumbass. Some governments already do so as mitigation measures for such things as highway projects.

DOOMAGE!

Global Warming PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

Big Green’s anti-fracking operatic chorus hits false notes

Global Warming on Free Republic

Latest from Global Warming News

Latest from Real Climate

Latest from Climate Depot

Latest from Greenie Watch

Latest from Junk Science

Latest from Terra Daily

42 posted on 05/14/2013 8:27:55 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Drag Me From Hell!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter

That graph must be somewhat dated. It says that present CO2 is about 380 ppm. Last I heard, it was something like 392 ppm, the present 400 ppm measurement notwithstanding.


43 posted on 05/14/2013 8:30:33 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Drag Me From Hell!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson