Another View on Climate

My Own View of Global Warming

Posts Tagged ‘Carbon Dioxide’

Abrupt Climate Change Over the Last 15,000 Years.

Posted by greg2213 on June 2, 2013

Alarmists love to call the modern warming “unprecedented.” This is pretty hysterical given that number of much larger and more abrupt changes over the years. The .5 to .8C over the last 150 years just doesn’t compare.

And all of those other changes (warming and cooling) were without benefit of significant CO2 changes. Thi sis another nail in the coffin of the “CO2 is the primary cause of CC” argument.

On, WUWT, the conclusion: 

(1) The ice core isotope data were hugely significant because they showed that the Younger Dryas, as well as the other late Pleistocene warming and cooling events, could not possibly be caused by human emissions of CO2 because they occurred thousands of years before such emissions had any effect on atmospheric CO2.

(2) The magnitude and intensity of multiple climatic fluctuations has been up to 20 times larger than warming during the past century.

(3) Single events, i.e., volcanic activity or cosmic impacts, cannot have caused the abrupt Dansgaard/Oerscher warming and cooling events because of the multiplicity of warm/cold events over periods of thousands of years.

(4) The absence of a time lag between the N and S Hemisphere glacial fluctuations precludes an oceanic cause and is not consistent with the North Atlantic Deep Ocean Water hypothesis for the cause of the Younger Dryas.

(5) The abruptness of the climate changes and their multiplicity could not have been caused by slow, Croll-Milankovitch orbital forcing, which occurs over many tens of thousands of years. Since fluctuations to and from full glacial climates occurred over short periods of time, clearly a cause other than the Croll-Milankovitch theory is capable of causing the Ice Ages .

The whole article is here.

The modern warming compared to prior warmings:

(see the full article for details.)

a-nice-graph Links:

Enhanced by Zemanta
Advertisements

Posted in Cycles, Temerature Records | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Study finds global warming over past 4 centuries was due to increased solar activity

Posted by greg2213 on June 6, 2011

A peer-reviewed paper published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics finds global warming over the 20th century “not significantly different” from warming episodes that occurred in earlier centuries. The paper finds that the increase in solar activity over the past 400 years explains the warming, without any need to search for a unique cause of late 20th century warming, such as greenhouse gas concentrations. The NIPCC website just posted this summary of the paper:

Here’s the rest of the post: Study finds global warming over past 4 centuries was due to increased solar activity

The paper is not behind a payway, so click the link above to get the link to the PDF. Given that papers of this sort have a much higher bar to pass than alarmist supporting papers I’m going to assume that it’s pretty solid. Conclusive? Who knows. A pretty good piece of research, yes.

A slightly variable sun causes warming of the surface and atmosphere which causes airstreams and currents which are affected by the physical location and shape of the landmasses and the Earth’s rotation, day night cycles, and a few other things. Somewhere CO2/methane might have something to do with it, but that’s looking less likely as time goes on.

One of the issues with the Global Warming concept is the lack of explanation for prior warm periods, warmer than the current period, when CO2 could not have been the driver. And if it was then we should be seeing seriously warmer temps today. We’re not.

Additionally, there is the lack of explanation for why the planet didn’t burn up in past ages when CO2 was far higher than today’s measly concentration. In fact, life flourished back then. If the CO2 concerns were real then we’d be seeing significantly higher, to much higher, temps today and at least some of the hysterical remarks would be coming true. At little bit, anyway.

As it is, all of them can by put into the “The End is Near” bin of failed religious cult predictions. 100% fail rate. If we need to mend our ways then the accusing side should have some credibility, I think. So far, they have none.

As far as I’m concerned, the sooner we got off the “CO2 is bad” kick, the better.

Posted in CO2, Scientists Say | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The (not quite) Interview

Posted by greg2213 on May 28, 2010

Climate Skeptic was asked to give an interview on… climate. He was asked some leading questions, from an obviously alarmist bias, and gave his answers.

The Air Vent listed the same questions for any interested commenters.

So, just for fun, here are my remarks, but CS has better ones.

Do you believe that global warming and climate change are a grave problem to the world at the moment ?

Yes, but not due to temperature fluctuations. Oh, you just mean temperature? Then no.

IF NO

What gives you reason to believe that global warming and climate change are not really happening?

Nice dodge. Note the change in question from the “Do you believe” above. Global warming has happened to the tune of  maybe 1 degree F over the last 120 some odd years.

Climate change has been happening for billions of years.

Of course, catastrophic warming is what the original remark was addressing and there is zero evidence to believe in CGW.

Is there any scientific evidence to support that global warming and climate change is not really that harmful?

The question is backwards and should be, “Is there any evidence to show that global warming is harmful?”

Or one could look at it this way: Climate change has been proven to be disasterous. Try to imagine living under a mile of ice. Much of Europe would be wiped out as would Canada, most of the northern US, and so on.

There is zero evidence to show that global warming is harmful (and by that I mean real global warming, not the CGW nonsense.)

Are most scientists wrong?

About what, exactly?

Most scientists have been wrong about most things since science was invented. Good scientists look at the data obtained and go back and fix their hypotheses. Eventually they refine their hypotheses into theories, through the collection of real world data, and have a better estimate of what’s real.

Then another scientist comes along and proves them wrong. Einstein and Newton, for example.

What do you think is causing temperature changes on a scale never seen before?

What changes? On what scale? And why do you think they haven’t been seen before? Unless you’re only looking back a few years?

This is an odd question since we’re not seeing temperature changes on a scale never seen before. There is nothing about the slight amount of warming that has not been seen before. Many times.

Science tells us that there have been many times in the past with far faster rises and drops. Though the rises usually occur from the coldest levels and the drops from the warmest.Clearly the climate is extremely stable, though within a certain range it shows definite variation. All natural.

Clearly the questioners are unaware of this fact.

What did you think to the results of Copenhagen?

Quite nice. It was lovely to see so many power and money hungry would-be dictators go home disappointed, especially after burning all that carbon to get there.

I expect they had some great parties, though.

Why do governments seem so concerned with the issue?

Because Al Gore is a superb marketer and because the issue is a bit win for lovers of big government (and socialism, totalitarianism, etc.)

The issue has a built in constituency. The Pols that shout “WARMING!” the loudest have all the greens automatically supporting (voting for) them. Gore shows his hockey stick and millions of people show an interest in him. Intoxicating. Not to mention what it did for the value of his investments.

Then there’s the vast amounts of tax money and the intoxicating power of being dictators.

If fossil fuels will run out anyway, surely we should move to find alternatives. Why not now?

The question has nothing to do with warming. Actually, if we burned off all known fossil fuel reserves we would not double our CO2 levels.

There are lots of reasons to move away from fossil fuels, certain political reasons being the big ones and CO2 being the least of them. Cutting our dependence on foreign oil has massive political benefits, but not if it cripples our economy.

Drill and build here first, then cut the ties as new domestic energy sources allow.

Even if it is not guaranteed that manmade emissions are to blame, wouldn’t it be wise to act anyway? It’s a hell of a gamble to our children’s future.

To blame for what? There is zero evidence of warming catastrophe so what’s the gamble?

However, we DO know that insane Gov spending is vastly more damaging to our kid’s future than is climate change.

CGW mitigation is a worthless waste of money and resources.

Don’t we have a duty to protect or planet for future generations? (i.e. save it from deforestation, pollution etc)

A separate question entirely and one that has nothing to do with warming. If fact, warming is probably last on a long list of environmental concerns, it’s just that it has the best chance to generate those increasing investments and massive tax revenues.

Of course we have a duty to prove a clean living space for our kids and we’ve been doing just that. The fact is that the world is much cleaner and greener than it was 30 years ago.

Since all the mitigation factors seem to be designed to make Al Gore and Goldman-Sachs very rich and massively increase governmental control and keep the 3rd world from developing and since those factors will do nothing to stop the non-existent CGW I think we do have a duty. That duty is to fight the CGW crowd every inch of the way.

IF YES

How bad is climate change at the moment?

Given the economic destruction planned by the CGW crowd  I think it’s potentially disasterous. The cures, not the climate change. Millions of people will live far less happy lives so that Gore, Pachauri, and various Governments can grow richer and more powerful.

What did you think to the results of Copenhagen?

Woot!

Is it increasing at an uncontrollable rate? Or is there still a chance to reduce climate change and alter its predicted course of events?

Yes, Gov lust for money and power does seem to be increasing rapidly. What’s increasing more rapidly is the frustrations of the would be dictators pushing the CGW issue.

Climate change is uncontrollable and it’s not increasing, but there’s likely to be a pretty major change coming along at some point. It’s called an ice age.

Do you have any comments on the recent e-mail leak scandal that was publicized?

Wasn’t that great? Now we know what passes for science among the “in” crowd.

What do you think about the rising levels of climate change skepticism?

It’s a beautiful thing and absolutely necessary. It’s because of the skeptics that we might actually be able to generate some real climate science and get away from the Al Gore fantasies.

How could and/or will climate change or similarly global warming affect the Middle East region in particular the Arabian peninsula?

Climate change over the last 12,000 years has had significant effects on the middle east. Seal level rise after the last ice age seems to have drowned a few cities.  The deserts have been much greener in the past and maybe, with a bit of warning, they will be again.

What about other vulnerable countries?

The economic hardships planned by the CGW community will be far more damaging than warming. If there’s major cooling then those countries are likely to be the choice of  many people leaving the glaciered areas.

What can the average citizen do more or less to help reduce climate change and its impact?

Start by getting the CGW types out of office, especially Al Gore and his ilk. Strong economies will make adaptation to catastrophic weather effects and cooling much easier to deal will.

What do you predict will happen to major cities in the world if the problem of global warming is not addressed immediately?

Life will go on, much as it has. If warming is addresses, with the recommended “cures,” then their economies will collapse. However, the CGW crowd might see some heads exploding out of sheer frustration. Duct tape is a good preventative.

How will an increase in global warming change the earth’s natural weather activities i.e. how will people and animals be affected, ecosystems, the weather….

Based on actual historical records, warming will clearly be a good thing for people, plants, and critters. A warmer climate will likely bring about fewer storms and less chaotic weather.

Plants and animals will be able to expand their ranges and be less stressed. Crops will have longer and better growing seasons. There will be less winter-kill.

Critters in marginal environments (eg: polar bears) will be less stressed.

Any areas experiencing droughts will be outweighed by the areas experiencing improved conditions.

All in all, it would be a good thing.

How can we move forward on this issue?

By respecting the skeptics and working for real science. Send the Al Gore crowd on its way and lets get a real discussion going, instead of the endless stream on contempt heaped upon the skeptics.

Are you confident we can find a solution?

There is no warming problem to find a solution to, so the question is moot. Other, real, pollution problems have solutions and those are being used to good effect.

What are the chances of a new technology saving us? (for example, carbon capture)

Saving us? From what? Alien invasion? Carbon capture schemes are a poor idea. Drop the exotic tech and plant more trees.

Is carbon trading effectively passing the buck? Does it actually help?

The only people that it helps are those playing the carbon credit game (Gore, Soros, Goldman-Sachs, etc.) It does nothing for the environment, makes the poor poorer, and the truly poor will become desperate. Or starve.


Posted in Global Warming | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

So What Should be Done About CO2?

Posted by greg2213 on May 15, 2010

My view is nothing. But I’ll go deeper in…

Jeff @ The Air Vent asks the question, “What to do About CO2,” since so many, otherwise rational, people seem to think we should do something. Since I don’t see CO2 or warming as problems you can probably guess what my answer would be. I commented on his post and I’ll repeat that here.

The questions Jeff asks are:

– Why we should limit CO2

We shouldn’t. We should limit the toxic stuff, but CO2 is about as far from toxic as one can get and is, in fact, one of the bases of the entire food chain of this planet. All of the Earth’s greenery would be much happier if CO2 levels tripled. So would our ocean life.

We certainly should try to get off of fossil fuels eventually, one major reason being that it would free us from dependence on violent mid-east regimes. Before we can do that we should develop our own carbon resources and encourage 3rd world countries to develop theirs. Let the Hugo Chevez’ and Irans of the world import their fuels, we (in the US) have enough oil/coal/shale resources that we can cut our dependence big time. Add in nuclear and we could probably say goodbye to Saudi Arabia and the others.

– What your preferred method for limitation is

My preferred limitation is to limit the green extremists and Al Gore types. To keep them as far from political office and policy as possible. Cut taxes (and spending) and offer greater tax breaks to companies bringing new clean technologies to market, including nuclear, geothermal, and hydro.

Kill cap and tax (trade) since that’s a bigger scan than anything Bernie or Enron ever dreamed of. Well, except that Enron was a big supporter of Kyoto… Gee, I wonder why…

Kill the money train to 3rd world dictators since they will only spend the money on palaces and luxuries,  not on improving the lot of their peoples.

and if you’re interested, why it’s better than doing nothing.

Doing nothing is better and cutting government interference in the marketplace is better still.

Oh yes, and Drill Baby, Drill. Cleanly.

Posted in CO2 | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

CO2 Pollution – More Thoughts

Posted by greg2213 on February 22, 2010

8/18/13: 

From 10/12/13: “We try to keep CO2 levels in our U.S. Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels.”

On WUWT

6/7/13:

5/31/13: Elevated carbon dioxide making arid regions greener

Update 5/7/13:

Update 2/25/13: Principia beats up on the CO2 argument. It makes sense. If we run the CO2 argument through the IPCC statement, ” …we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible…” then the results of added CO2 are also not predictble.

Update: More on CO2 as plant (and human) food.

Saw something in my stats. Someone found this site under the term co2 pollution (#10 in Google for that term) so I figure, what the heck, I’ll toss in some more thoughts on CO2.

Also see my other post on the subject: DOOM From CO2 Pollution

Briefly, CO2 is not, in any way, shape, or form, a pollutant in the generally understood meaning of the term. It’s a primary leg of the entire eco-system. CO2, water, sunlight. Personally, I think any “greens” who believe that CO2 is a pollutant should have their I’m a green card removed.

So why would anyone call CO2 a pollutant?

Agenda. Power and money. Any Government that controls CO2 controls most of our energy production, transportation, and any other industry that relies on those two things. And that’s pretty much all of them. Pretty sweet deal if you’re  a big gov type, socialist, communist, dictator… wait… that’s almost every government on the planet. Hmm… Makes one think that the greens might have something other than “saving the ecosystem” on their minds, doesn’t it?

Carbon trading might become a trillion dollar business. Not a bad game since nothing real is being traded and Gov gets to collect taxes from the deal. That’s why all the banks are in on the game. And many of the Oil companies.

Back to CO2…

  1. IF CO2 is driving global warming and
  2. IF people are responsible for enough CO2 to have a global effect and
  3. IF warming is a bad thing then

CO2 might be a bad thing.

However… #1 looks to be wrong, #2 is iffy by itself and dead if #1 is wrong, and #3 has been shown to be wrong given the historical & geological record.

So given that the CO2 is a supporting leg of the entire ecosystem of this planet the only possible conclusion is that CO2 is a very good thing and more of it would also be a good thing. The ecosystem will thank us.

Someone told me that thousands of peer-reviewed papers stated that CO2 is a pollutant, in the standard use of that word. I don’t believe that. I don’t think there’s one PR paper that shows that, though there might behundreds that that link CO2 to warming.

More on CO2 benefits.

CO2 science has a ton of great info and a number of these links are from that site.

Double CO2 increases crops 33% – So if over population is an issue (increasing tech decreases population growth) then increasing food supplies might be seen as a good idea by some.

Update:

CO2 is a Pollutant? Objectivist Individualist: “…So, if CO2 is a pollutant because it is a greenhouse gas, then so is water. We should next expect to see the EPA drawing up restrictions on the human use of water which may add to the water vapor concentration in the atmosphere…”

Update:

CO2 depletion
“Plant photosynthetic activity can reduce the CO2 within the plant canopy to between 200 and 250 ppm… I observed a 50 ppm drop in within a tomato plant canopy just a few minutes after direct sunlight at dawn entered a green house (Harper et al 1979) … photosynthesis can be halted when CO2 concentration approaches 200 ppm… (Morgan 2003) Carbon dioxide is heavier than air and does not easily mix into the greenhouse atmosphere by diffusion… “

CO2 and Wheat
“The CO2 concentration at 2 m above the crop was found to be fairly constant during the daylight hours on single days or from day-to-day throughout the growing season ranging from about 310 to 320 p.p.m. Nocturnal values were more variable and were between 10 and 200 p.p.m. higher than the daytime values. “

Surprise: Earths’ Biosphere is Booming, Satellite Data Suggests CO2 the Cause

Planet Earth is on a roll! GPP is way up. NPP is way up. To the surprise of those who have been bearish on the planet, the data shows global production has been steadily climbing to record levels, ones not seen since these measurements began.

GPP is Gross Primary Production, a measure of the daily output of the global biosphere –the amount of new plant matter on land. NPP is Net Primary Production, an annual tally of the globe’s production. Biomass is booming. The planet is the greenest it’s been in decades, perhaps in centuries.

Isolated for 42 days in chambers of ambient and elevated CO2 concentrations, we periodically document the growth of cowpea plants (Vigna unguiculata) via time-lapse photography. From CO2 Science:

Posted in CO2 | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

The Death of Global Warming???

Posted by greg2213 on February 2, 2010

The SPPI blog has a guest post titled, “The Death of Global Warming.” It’s an interesting post, worth reading, even though it’s from a true believer.  I’m going to add a few comments here.

First off, though, “Global Warming” died years back when the term was changed to the meaningless Climate Change. This was a simple acknowledgment that there is no there, there, despite what the alarmists try to push. Note that no one on the believer side is worried about global cooling. Fact is, the climate does change and has been for billions of years. And yes, I know that Climate Change is short for Catastrophic Man Made Climate Change. My remark still stands.

Also note that the small amount of warming that we might have actually seen (and which we haven’t seen for a few years) is an entirely separate thing from the hysterical alarmism that created the Copenhagen conference.

The global warming movement as we have known it is dead.  Its health had been in steady decline during the last year as the once robust hopes for a strong and legally binding treaty to be agreed upon at the Copenhagen Summit faded away…

The movement died from two causes: bad science and bad politics.

After years in which global warming activists had lectured everyone about the overwhelming nature of the scientific evidence, it turned out that the most prestigious agencies in the global warming movement were breaking laws, hiding data, and making inflated, bogus claims resting on, in some cases, no scientific basis at all…

With this in mind, ‘climategate’ — the scandal over hacked emails by prominent climate scientists — looks sinister rather than just unsavory…

That the Global Warming Movement is dead is a very good thing and it’s very hard to build a case on bad science. By the way, the emails were leaked by an insider, not hacked.

Ok, now lets get to what I want to comment on…

The global warmists were trapped into the necessity of hyping the threat by their realization that the actual evidence they had — which, let me emphasize, all hype aside, is serious, troubling and establishes in my mind the need for intensive additional research and investigation, as well as some prudential steps that would reduce CO2 emissions by enhancing fuel use efficiency and promoting alternative energy sources…

Serious and troubling, based on what? There is zero evidence that warmer temperatures, if, in fact, those are actually in the pipeline, are a bad thing. Cooler temps certainly are a bad thing, as can be seen by the death stats. Greatly cooling temps would be disasterous, unless you like the idea of living under a permanent glacier.

CO2 is also a good thing and the evidence that it is a pollutant is nill. Regardless of what effect it may have on climate. See this post for more about CO2.

Now it has failed.  Not everything that has come out of the IPCC and the East Anglia Climate Unit is false, but enough of their product is sufficiently tainted that these institutions can best serve the cause of fighting climate change by stepping out of the picture…

Absolutely. The issue, of course, is whether the media leaves its staunchly alarmist position and whether those in power become more skeptical. If these things don’t happen then the 2013 IPCC report will likely be more of the same and it will be left to the bloggers to do the media’s (and Gov’s) job for them. Any new UN climate group might not be named “IPCC,” but we can be pretty sure their goals will remain the same. They might do a better job of covering up iffy science, but I don’t believe they will actually disown the hype in favor of reality. Unless they hop onto a cooling bandwagon, like we saw in the 70s.

The global warming campaigners got into this mess because they had a deeply flawed political strategy.  They were never able to develop a pragmatic approach that could reach its goals in the context of the existing international system.

They were never able to substantiate their extreme claims in any way, that’s why they’re in this mess. Their proposed programs are intended and designed to shackle western civilization and centralize a lot of power and money with government, not help people with any of the claimed problems of warming.

If a large asteroid was on a course to slam into the Earth I think you’d see some serious cooperation. You’d have a few skeptics and a few who would want that asteroid to hit (wipe out the horrors of civilization,) but most people and Gov’s would be right on board.

Without a commitment from the United States to pay its share of the $100 billion plus per year that poor countries wanted as their price for compliance, and without US participation in other aspects of the proposed global approach, the intricate global deals fall apart.

Does anyone believe that any of that $100 billion would go to anything that would have any effect on the climate? All it would do is increase the number of Government palaces and increase the number of exotic cars and toys among the ruling classes of those countries (remember that people like Castro, Chavez, and the late S. Hussein are/were very rich from siphoning off cash flows to their accounts.)  The people would still be screwed, but western countries would have their leg irons, which is, after all, the whole idea.

Countries would cheat, either because they chose to do so or because their domestic systems are so weak, so corrupt or so both that they simply wouldn’t be able to comply…

This is the best argument for adaptation as opposed to economy crushing mitigation, even if warming was real and was dangerous.

The death of global warming (the movement, not the phenomenon) has some important political and cultural consequences in the United States that I’ll be blogging on down the road.  Basically, Sarah Palin 1, Al Gore zip.  The global warming meltdown confirms all the populist suspicions out there about an arrogantly clueless establishment invoking faked ’science’ to impose cockamamie social mandates on the long-suffering American people, backed by a mainstream media that is totally in the tank. Don’t think this won’t have consequences…

Yes, the phenomenon is dead, because if it isn’t dangerous then there is no reason to crush our economies to prevent it. The proponents have failed miserably to build the case that warming is dangerous, much less catastrophic. Lots of hype, zero science (science showing warming is not science showing that warming is dangerous.)

  1. Sarah Palin 1, Al Gore zip – Given Ms. Palin’s leanings I’d say the score in her favor is much higher. Objectively, her view on warming is far closer to reality than Gore’s (or Obama’s)
  2. an arrogantly clueless establishment – The Western world has shed a lot of blood to get rid of arrogantly clueless leaders over the last few hundred years. There’s no reason to go back under the thumb of people who want to rule us for their own good. We’ve been there. The next job is to get the rest of the world out from under the boots of these people.
  3. invoking faked ’science’ – Hide the decline, IPCC using WWF as a trusted source, climate theories ripped to pieces by engineers and other scientists, huge majorities of scientists saying AGW is crap, and so on.
  4. cockamamie social mandates – That sums it up nicely. The mandates are about power and money, not about helping anyone (except maybe carbon traders.)
  5. mainstream media that is totally in the tank – Which has been proven repeatedly.
  6. Don’t think this won’t have consequences – Is that a threat? Those consequences aren’t climate related so does this mean that the watermelon crowd will will get even more shrill over the non-existent threat?

Posted in Global Warming | Tagged: , , , | 6 Comments »

DOOM From CO2 Pollution

Posted by greg2213 on February 2, 2010

One of the amusing concepts of AGW hysteria is the idea that CO2 is a pollutant. Here are a few links to convincingly demonstrate the awfulness of CO2:

Forests in the Eastern United States are growing faster than they have in the past 225 years

In Praise of CO2

Rising Tree Mortality – Gore is wrong, yet again. Is anyone surprised?

So, you want to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere? – A little lesson on plant biology.

Doubling CO2 will have the catastrophic effect of greatly increasing crop yields.

Sea Scientists Say That the Oceans Hate CO2 – “Now the doomsayers are telling you that the oceans are turning acid from all that nasty carbon dioxide being absorbed into the seas. How frightening! Or perhaps…”

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (pdf) – A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon di oxide
has, however, markedly…

The Future of Life on Earth: What to Do about CO2 – because more CO2 in the air is what we desperately need, in order to prevent the planet from experiencing one of the greatest mass extinctions events of its entire history.

CO2 and Butterfly Extinction – A summary of several papers dealing on the subject.

The Cancer-Kale Connection: What’s CO2 Got To Do With It? – A discussion of the effects CO2 has on the cancer fighting properties of Chinese Kale.

CO2 Pollution Causes the Earth to Grow Greener. A NASA-Department of Energy jointly funded study concludes the Earth has been greening over the past 20 years. As climate changed…

A hardcore green admits to CO2 increasing biomass.

Amazon Forests doomed as CO2 increases biomass… waitaminute…

Posted in Benefits, CO2 | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

CO2 Has Been Higher in the Recent Past

Posted by greg2213 on January 15, 2010

Recent, in this context, is over the last 180 years. Prior to putting a CO2 monitoring station on an active, CO2 spewing volcano, scientists used other methods. Those methods are detailed in a draft paper by Ernst-Georg Beck.

Here are the first three points of his summary

1. There is no constant exponential rising CO2-concentration since preindustrial times but a varying 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.
2. Historical air analysis by chemical means do not prove a preindustrial CO2-concentration of 285 ppm (IPCC),as modern climatology postulates. In contrast the average in the 19th century in northern hemisphere is 321 ppm and in the 20th century 338 ppm.
3. Todays CO2 value of. 380 ppm, which is considered as threatening has been known several times in the last 200 years, in the 20 th century around 1942 and before 1870 in the 19th century. The maximum CO2-concentration in the 20th century roses to over 420 pmm in 1942.

The rest is here

Posted in CO2, Measurements | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »