Alarming greenhouse gas discovery!

American Institute of Physics ^ | 2001 | Spencer Weart

[OK]

Carbon dioxide is plant food. It would be a boon to worldwide crop production to have more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Global warming is a hoax by global socialists to get more power over economic activity.

[ricpic]

Farting cow alert!

[Blueflag]

You are so correct. Scientists at what was then USL (Ragin' Cajuns) demonstrated that a LACK of CO2 is the limiting factor in agricultural (corn/wheat/rice) and marine flora growth. [VantHoff's law notwithstanding]

Would these folks, similarly mis-concenred, be as worried about a drop in CO2? Methinks not.

[aruanan]

What do you think? Most people would find it shocking to think that we could permanently change the composition of our atmosphere. If you follow the links, you will find all sorts of fascinating information.

Go to The Science & Environmental Policy Project for information that is more up-to-date than an essay in 1959. Of all the so-called greenhouse gases produced, only about 9.86 E-6 is anthropogenic:

"I went to the trouble of adding up all the greenhouse gases, as provided in Gregg Easterbrook’s excellent book, A Moment on the Earth, and then converted the total volume to a linear scale. That’s so you can get a better sense of mankind’s total annual contribution. That is, I wondered if there were one mile of greenhouse gas, how much of that would be the result of all of man’s doing. I found that out of 5,280 feet, mankind contributes five-eighths of an inch."

[trebb]

What do you think? Most people would find it shocking to think that we could permanently change the composition of our atmosphere

I think that since it's obvious that CO2 levels didn't rise 25% by the end of the last century, the new standard is it will be really really bad by the end of this century. And if that doesn't work, there will be folks saying it about the century after that...ad-infinitum/ad-nauseum...

[djf]

True. For the vast majority of the history of Earth, it has been warmer. And no metter what man does, it would only take about 2 good volcanic events to put more CO2, SO2 and O3 into the skies than man does in a thousand years.

[metesky]

How'd I know that?

[tcostell]

If it weren't for the poster's manners, I'm sure we'd be seeing the Viking Kittens.

[NautiNurse]

Please tell me why we had such a cold winter here in Florida. Enquring minds want to know.

[FreedomPoster]

Middle Ages were warmer than today, say scientists
By Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 06/04/2003)

Claims that man-made pollution is causing "unprecedented" global warming have been seriously undermined by new research which shows that the Earth was warmer during the Middle Ages.

[djf]

You had to go and mention cats...

Well, here it is, the video Nokia discounts.

[FreedomPoster]

BTW - it's worth nothing that during the "Medieval Climate Optimum", it was substantially warmer that it is now, and it was known as that due to the excellent agricultural outcomes it produced (grapes grew ~300 miles further north). Then enviralmentalist whackos with an ax to grind and grants to get got ahold of it, and it became the "Medieval Warm Period".

Medieval Climate Optimum

More info.

I guess it became less optimal when politics got involved, requiring it be renamed as the "Warm Period".

Perhaps a FReeper historian can help me: Were SUV's horse-drawn during this period?

Oh, and you - put that in your bong and smoke it.

[Leisler]

Ya but they were burning a lot of people back then. You know, big smelly, smokey fat fires. Ye could hardly sit on yer roof at night and see the lovely glow of hundreds of fires of burning heritics, withces, pagans, leftist, democrats, socialists, lawyers......

Hey, those were the days!

[FreedomPoster]

Bring out your dead!

[Leisler]

"I'm not dead yet!"

[kidd]

The paper can be summarized as follows: "Before 1950, it was thought that the oceans were absorbing all the carbon dioxide that industry was producing. But the ocean layers don't mix very efficiently, therefore the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to human contributions to the carbon cycle."

This is, of course, absurd.

The paper provides no deep ocean carbon dating. It does not discuss the huge effect of bio-absorbtion of carbon dioxide, such as by plankton. It doesn't discuss how completely miniscule human contributions to the carbon cycle are.

Your paper is interesting only from a historical point of view (such as how did all this global warming nonsense start?) - it is grossly inadequate from a scientific point of view.

[sticker]

According the the global warming "experts" (aka dumba@@s) the cold winter is another sign of global warming. But if we have a warmer than normal winter they say that's a sign of global warming. AHH I am so confused

[q_an_a]

Here is a report quoting stats from 1957. Using the same type of data Lyndon Johnson created the Great Society. Now, all the data created by one study has been proven FALSE. People have been put to work and it is improving their lives. It is just as likely that power transmission wires DO NOT cause CANCER as earlier reported. The facts of this case are still being studied and new imformation makes your report look like the junk science like that monarch butterfly research.

[Publius6961]

Exponentially huh?
Has the CO2 concentration increased by 25%?
The silence on that small detail is defeaning.

Let me mole around and find that fascinating 30s article on the Flat Earth...
Then there's the series about the Hollow Earth.

Entertainment writ large...

[PeterPrinciple]

When I was in college, I learned that most plants are CO2 starved. Co2 would be released in greenhouses to stimulate growth.