The CO2 Lie (One more domino falls)

IBD ^ | Feb 10, 2010 | editorial

[The Raven]

Climate Change: A new study shows that Earth's ability to absorb carbon dioxide from all sources, including man, has remained unchanged for 160 years. As it turns out, there may be no carbon to offset.

A major tenet of the global warming religion, straight from the Book of Gore, has been that the ability of the earth to handle increasing CO2 emissions is finite and that once the "tipping point" is reached, the earth will warm uncontrollably. Well, another climate domino has fallen — the myth that man-made CO2 is leading to climate catastrophe.

..

The new study, ..show that only 45% of man's emissions, not 100% as warmers claim, stays in the atmosphere, ..

The rest is absorbed by nature, and that percentage hasn't changed since 1850. ..

.. This post-Climate-gate study provides another nail in the coffin of cap-and-trade and shows why the Environmental Protection Agency should not be allowed to destroy the U.S. economy by absurdly regulating carbon dioxide, the basis for all life on earth, as a pollutant.

[afraidfortherepublic]

My 10 trees and lilac bush from the Arbor Day Foundation are coming as soon as the snow melts.

[Ro_Thunder]

That’s been what I’ve been confused about all this time. If there’s too much C02, plant more trees - the grasses, trees, philodendrons, etc all live on CO2. They absorb it, use it, and convert it to Oxygen for us mammals to breathe in. That’s the ECOSYSTEM that God designed.

Of course, dollars to donuts the AGW people don’t believe in God, so the ECOSYSTEM doesn’t work that way for them, and they say we need to just get rid of people. (Thus Planned Parenthood and the millions of abortions world wide).

[RoadGumby]

Does it really matter? ALL carbon on the earth is here. Any that is ‘locked up’ in oil, trees, natural gas, biomass, etc was once part of the atmosphere and its cycles. We can put no carbon back into the atmosphere that wasn;t once there to begin with at some point.

Carbon in the atmosphere is self regulating in a band that has and will vary over time, depending on so many othe rvariables, that ‘control’ is just a vapor of an idea, much less a possibility. So, if one is concerned about ‘too much CO2” in the air, I would ask, “What is the ‘normal’ concentration for our planet, being as it has varied from highs and lows. What is good? What is bad? Why? And most important, WHAT CAN WE EVEN DO ABOUT IT? It’s like peeing in Lake Superior and worrying that you ‘warmed it up’.

[Erasmus]

Levitt and Dubner (The Freakonomics guys) relate a standing joke among economists:

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

[gibtx2]

i think we should publish all the names of the Global Warming fraud on FR with their emails and all of us should send them a copy of the RICO act and then to the ag in their state.....

[Question Liberal Authority]

So the final nail in the coffin of so called “AGW”.

How many nails is that, 147 million?

[Question Liberal Authority]

I said it sounds to me like we just all need to plant some trees.

Even that would be overkill. The vast majority of life on Earth is microscopic, and most of that is in the ocean.

[Carry_Okie]

I said it sounds to me like we just all need to plant some trees. He laughed and said it made more sense than cap and tax.

Trees are not permanent carbon storage. They rot. Frankly, perennial grasses put more carbon into the soil, but then we'd need those nasty cattle and sheep to help us out with that one.

The only really significant long-term carbon storage on the planet is in the skeletal calcium carbonate of algae-consuming flagellates, foraminifera in particular, aka "limestone."

[Question Liberal Authority]

A single volcano eruption will spew more 'greenhouse gas' into the atmosphere than mankind has in the entire history of civilization. Yet, these volcano eruptions have no lasting long term effect on the climate. When Mount Penitubo erupted in 1991, the Earth cooled for a few weeks, but it eventually got back to normal.

We can observe what happens when a large amount of greenhouse gas is in the atmosphere. Clouds are made of condensed water vapor, which is a much more potent gas than carbon dioxide. Yet, when it's cloudy out, it isn't particularly warm. If global warming theory was accurate, the clouds should act like a blanket, trapping the rays of the sun close to the surface of the Earth, and causing the Earth to get blistering hot. Yet, just the opposite happens, because the clouds also prevent the sun's rays from getting to the Earth in the first place.

Actual greenhouses aren't warm because of the gasses inside. Greenhouses are warm because they don't allow convection. Think of rolling your car windows up on a hot day. The air in the car gets hot. Roll the windows down, and the air in the car will be just as hot as the air outside. The Earth has plenty of convection. It's called "wind".

[Smokin' Joe]

6 H2O + 6 CO2 ===> (in the presence of sunlight and chlorophyll) C6H12O6 + 6 O2

The basic carbon sequestration reaction, and essential to most life on Earth.

[wmposh]

This made me chuckle for it is so self evident
Growing disparity between observable data and apocalyptic computer models,
But the rebuttal would be that computer models are much smarter than data computed by an individual

[Smokin' Joe]

Not just in the oolites, but hosts of marine creatures utilize and sequester carbon in their shells made of Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3).

More CO2 could contribute to more phytoplankton, which is the bottom of the food chain, and make the oceans a healthier happier place for bigger critters who dine at some link in the chain.

It is all interconnected, but those interconnections guarantee that the system is self-regulating.

A wonderful design, really.

[wmposh]

Their is one observation that from fossil fuels emissions that attaches itself to Co2 when absorb in planets and oceans is an adverse pollutant. I heard one scientist say which I do not know if true or not gets into the glaciers and then the weight of it causes it to crack or weakens.
The media will show a huge chunk of ice falling into the ocean to prove global warming. This is to prove the receding of the ice pack. They do not know if this weight could or not be because of fossil fuels or just mother nature Fossil fuels are still a product of earth's decomposition it is it's emissions that are still in question to health and safety

[AndyTheBear]

Are there any believers in AGW left on FR?

[chris_bdba]

Yep I learned that in earth science back in the early 70’s in middle school.

[HerrBlucher]

Do not allow yourself to use the recent cold weather as the argument against the climate change groups.....it is no better than pointing to a heatwave as evidence of climate change.

No one really is, they are just throwing crap back in the faces of globalwarmers who cite unusually warm weather as proof of global warming. We have seen that countless times. Even better though, is the video of such a citation, and recent video of the same people citing unusually cold weather as proof of global warming.

They are showing themselves to be completely ridiculous.

[savedbygrace]

And they never complain about my morning mouth.

[BigEdLB]

The Algore we see is not the one Bush defeated in 2000... CO₂, is an issue. He wants to corner the market to ensure he does not run out.

[The Raven]

>>But the rebuttal would be that computer models are much smarter than data computed by an individual

It's a little like the left’s eternal quest for Utopia and fairness. Since it is impossible, they eternally have things to say in a campaign.

It is humorous when the “Warmers” declare the snow and cold as caused by Global Warming.

I wish someone would ask them why they went out of their way to illegally hide these data if it made their case.

[Miss Marple]

Excellent point!

I am interested in the work of Dr. Henry Svenmark. There is a 6-part YouTube copy of a documentary of his work called "The Cloud Mystery" which is an alternative and understandable theory for the warming and cooling of the earth, based on cosmic rays.

There is also a book discussing his theory, called The Chilling Stars.

CO2 isn't involved at all.