NOAA/NASA Caught With Their Pants Down On Global Warming Numbers...

I do believe global warming is a hoax too, It is a propaganda campaign. It can not be either proved or disproved in our short life times. While there does appear to be a correlation between temperature rise and CO2, this is by no means proves global warming.

It is a perfect debate for the ignorant because neither side can prove themselves right, however they can pick out weakness in their other sides view point to 'win' the 'debate'.

The world's climate is not up for debate. The chemistry of this planet is changing as a result of human activity.

It is up to my generation to do something to better this planet. We are much more aware of this planet than we have ever have been in human history. It will not be long before we start terraforming Mars and possibly the Moon. In order to be able to do this successfully, we need to be able to maintain balance in this planet's atmosphere.

Our air's CO2 count is soaring right now. Up 1% every two years and it appears that rate is increasing. There is a problem and we need to offer solutions.

NASA's position changed when their funding became dependent on supporting GW. Before then NASA's data showed a cooling trend from the 1930's

Which I guess is why 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts protested NASA's current position on GW. You don't protest if you need to feed your family and children, you just ride the gravy train.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

a reply to: jrod

What?... So you are accepting the fact that AGW is a religion to you?... FINALLY...

Not to mention that if anyone is ignorant are those who keep believing the AGW scientists despite all the lies, and tampering with data they have done...

BTW, who the HELL are you to claim you know exactly how the Earth must be balanced?... Are you reading the Earth's mind and it's telling you what balance she needs?...

More important than CO2 are the real toxic chemicals being released all around the world into rivers, oceans, and even the atmosphere, but CO2 is not a pollutant. In fact CO2 is food for all the green biomass of Earth...

I keep finding it ironic how people like you keep claiming/implying "we must stop the rise of CO2, and we must even sequester CO2 from the atmosphere for the good of the planet"; yet people like you continue to ignore the fact that CO2 is what allows plants, and trees to flourish on Earth...

Let's read some facts about CO2, and not the lies being indoctrinated into the ignorant masses like yourself...

Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.

www.planetnatural.com...

The higher the levels of atmospheric CO2, the more harvests/yields that all green biomass will have, including trees, and plants, which would mean we would be able to feed more people...

Let's actually hear it from those who deal with atmospheric CO2 to increase harvests in greenhouses...

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) contributes to plant growth as part of the miracle of nature known as photosynthesis. This enables plants to combine Carbon Dioxide and water with the aid of light energy to form sugar. Some of these sugars are converted into complex compounds that increase dry solid plant substances for continued growth to final maturity. However, when the supply of carbon dioxide is cut off, or reduced, the complex plant cell structure cannot utilize the sun's energy fully and growth or development is curtailed.

CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2)
IMPROVES PLANT GROWTH AND QUALITY
Research has shown that in most cases rate of plant growth under otherwise identical growing conditions is directly related to carbon dioxide concentration.

The amount of carbon dioxide a plant requires to grow may vary from plant to plant, but tests show that most plants will stop growing when the CO2 level decreases below 150 ppm. Even at 220 ppm, a slow-down in plant growth is significantly noticeable.

Colorado State University conducted tests with carnations and other flowers in controlled CO2 atmospheres ranging from 200 to 550 ppm. The higher CO2 concentrations significantly increased the rate of formation of dry plant matter, total flower yield and market value.

www.homeharvest.com...


Actually some people who have greenhouses increase the level of atmospheric CO2 to much higher levels than 550 ppm. BTW to those who don't know it the amount of atmospheric CO2 on Earth is about 380-400 ppm, so it is NOWHERE near to being fatal for anything, much less plants who actually thrive with more atmospheric CO2...

Anyway further down in the above article you find...

SAMPLE RESULTS FROM CO2 ENRICHMENT STUDIES
BIBB LETTUCE
By adding CO2 to the atmosphere around the plant, a 40% crop increase was achieved. Whereas previous crops averaged 22 heads per basket, lettuce grown in the increased CO2 atmosphere (550 ppm) averaged 16 heads of better quality per basket.

CARNATIONS
CO2 levels to 550 ppm produced an obvious increase in yield (over 30%), but the greatest benefits were earlier flowering (up to 2 weeks) with an increased percentage of dry matter.

ROSES
The addition of controlled carbon dioxide provided a remarkable improvement in blossom quality, number and yield. Plants consistently produced many more flowers with 24 to 30 inch stems. Average yield was increased by 39.7%.

TOMATOES
Work in experimental stations has shown that crop increases of as much as 29% have been obtained by increasing the CO2 concentration. More desirable firmness and more uniform ripening are also observed.

www.homeharvest.com...


Let's continue shall we?...

Why you get more rapid and efficient growth and better plant quality with Johnson CO2.
Plants must absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) in combination with water, soil nutrients and sunlight to produce the sugars vital for growth. A shortage of any of these requirements will retard the growing process. Normally there are approximately 300 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere; when this level is increased to over 1 ,000 ppm, results are higher production and better plant quality. The Johnson Generator provides up to 1,500 ppm per unit in an average 24' x 200' greenhouse or an equivalent 50,000 cu. ft. volume based on one air change per hour.

www.johnsongas.com...

Perhaps those people who keep claiming that CO2 is bad for the environment now might understand why when Earth's atmosphere has had 7 and up to 12 times as much CO2 as now there was MORE green biomass, as in more trees, and more plants, not less, and life also flourished on land and in the oceans with much higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than now...

Not to mention...

PRESS RELEASE
Date Released: Thursday, June 5, 2003
Source: Goddard Space Flight Center

A NASA-Department of Energy jointly funded study concludes the Earth has been greening over the past 20 years. As climate changed, plants found it easier to grow.

The globally comprehensive, multi-discipline study appears in this week's Science magazine. The article states climate changes have provided extra doses of water, heat and sunlight in areas where one or more of those ingredients may have been lacking. Plants flourished in places where climatic conditions previously limited growth.

"Our study proposes climatic changes as the leading cause for the increases in plant growth over the last two decades, with lesser contribution from carbon dioxide fertilization and forest re-growth," said Ramakrishna Nemani, the study's lead author from the University of Montana, Missoula, Mont.
...

www.spaceref.com...

a reply to: Greven

You didn't answer any of the questions that I asked directly to you, and I'm not asking you to be a monkey, I'm asking you to provide support, with evidence, of what you claim in your posts as more than just your opinion. I posed several challenges to AGW in general, that question the data that keeps being presented as FACT, and you call me a liar instead of answering the questions. I showed multiple examples and sources of study that demonstrate how the underlying data that drives the models is inaccurate and leads to incorrect predictive modeling. I posed several other questions that make all of the CO2 arguments moot, regarding temperature. You ignored all of them, yet you claim to be convicted in your understanding. Your replies show that you didn't even read the posts of others, you are just looking for ways to pick people apart.

I have more integrity than to get down to insults with you. But, don't dare accuse me of lying, I know exactly what I wrote and the context I wrote it in. Make sure you have your facts straight and are accusing the right person. Maybe you should look at previous posts that I was replying to to get context of what I was referring to.

This:

As Ray already pointed out, the percentage of the carbon isotope that represents human emissions is not 40%, so a large part of the increase is from natural sources too.

Was in reference to the 40% increase in CO2 that JRod kept referring to, which Ray pointed out is NOT all 100% human emissions. I was pointing out that part of that 40% was natural emissions as well, and was not purely anthropogenic.

I question your integrity since you flat out accuse me of lying about something that you didn't bother to read and do your homework on. Here was the original comment from raymunduko:

You mean 60 ppm? And I already gave you those articles...

According to the isotopes the other 60 is natural. The conundrum for the IPCC right now is why is the anthropogenic count so much lower than their models say it should be. I linked you 6 peer reviewed papers as well as the IPCC report which discuss that. Are you even reading the links? Do me a favor, try and find me a peer reviewed paper that shows a 120ppm count of anthropogenic co2.

a reply to: jrod

Edit: *hint, you won't. You will just find tons of papers on figuring out why anthropogenic co2 is so low and how to improve co2 tracking by isotope. And yet again you chant the 40% stat without knowing the isotopic ratios.

All of the "ANSWERED" questions above were not the ones I was referring to, that you so conveniently avoid. (will clarify that in my next post)

The CO2 concentration millions of years ago is not relevant today. There were a great many other factors which are different. Citing the CO2 concentration as being higher way back then is blatantly ignoring that conditions were far different. This is not an obtuse concept.

Amazing double-standard. Of course the past is relevant to today's understanding, what kind of scientist are you? You aren't applying the same standard of "conditions were far different" a few hundred thousand years ago to your data when it is convenient for you. Of course they were different, what a fantastic argument instead of addressing the effect that CO2 had at the time or its relevance to climate study when CO2 amounts 10X what they are today were present while ice was still present in the Arctic. That completely defies the claims for today, that CO2 is going to melt the ice caps.

So it was so different in pre-historic times, but NOT so vastly different in the ice cores over the last 800K years that you don't ignore that data? Only the last 800K years of findings apply, right? And not the GEOCARB data or stomata records or anything else?

What a joke. You can use data from sources that are from hundreds of thousands of years ago to support your arguments, but ignore the data conveniently when it doesn't match your mental model.

Actually, I have submitted a paper for publication in a journal. It was a small paper and in a small journal - I'm not sure if it is in print yet; last I heard it was supposed to be printed in late August. This paper involved a mix of biology, chemistry, and physics (which sounds more impressive than it really is), and went through proper peer review from professors in the appropriate field. I fail to see how that is relevant to a critique on poor practices of another journal, but since you asked...

You would know if your paper was printed, but you aren't sure? LOL Impressive. Must be a really big journal. One that I shouldn't be concerned with, because they are a small journal that nobody has ever heard of?

Based on what you said:

If you want to ignore that criticism, how about this one: the journal he published in is crap. Energy & Environment appears to have poor peer review standards and reacts childishly to criticism.

Again, double-standards. You can call someone else's journal crap, the same standard can be applied to your work and anything you say.

You don't see the hypocrisy in your comment, that you expect that your paper should be taken seriously because it was peer-reviewed and possibly published, even though we don't know what publication.... yet you scold Beck's work because it's in a journal that YOU think is crap? Geez.

And you are going to bust my chops over a claim I made from something I heard first hand? You discredit everything else he understands about CO2 and the physics of it, simply because I made an off-hand comment?

You also didn't source your graph. That could come from anywhere. Please provide a source before I just take it at face value because it came from you. It shows data from 1995, but doesn't put it in context with the overall trend. Temps warmed in the last 15 years perhaps, but compared to the previous 100 years of temps, it's not increasing. So your graph is garbage.

Here is mine:



Sources:
RSS Data - ftp.ssmi.com...

MET Office - www.metoffice.gov.uk...

GISS - data.giss.nasa.gov...

~Namaste

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I have held this view for about 10 years now....maybe longer.

When I have I ever supported global warming in this forum? Not just this thread. I am well of aware of the environmental problems this planet is facing. There is no need to break things down like a 5 year old. As CO2 goes up O2 goes down....it is speculated that elevated CO2 will have an effect on human behavior....

It does not change the fact that CO2 concentrations are quickly on the increase.

So what solutions do you offer to the problem?

a reply to: Greven

I don't see why I should address your points when they are not directed to me. I commented on a few things, is all.

You injected yourself into the thread, made a bunch of claims, tried to poke holes in mine and others. When I call you out on them, you avoid them. That's is why you should address them, and they were directed to you as direct questions.

Questions such as:

Let me ask you this... if the average lag between temperature and CO2 is approximately 800 years +- 200... why wouldn't this current increase in CO2 be caused by the temperature increase during the Medieval Warming Period? It's well within the range of time to see the increase we're seeing.

Can you show any sources that show how much of the CO2 is absorbed by all of the planet's sinks? Better yet, can you find me one paper that has accurately determined all of the known CO2 sinks?

Can you show me the Fortran code for the HiTran model, or other climate models that are used, where is takes into consideration things like:

- clouds (still not fully accounted for)
- bacterial production and absorption of CO2 (since they are the dominant species on earth)
- soil outgassing
- ???

I would re-phrase the above question to say - can you show me anything, in papers or otherwise, that shows that these factors are accounted for in the same models that predict our doom? If they aren't, and we know they have an impact on CO2, please show how the models aren't wrong and we're all supposed to believe that human emitted CO2 is the cause of current warming and not something else?

You avoided answering this:

So are YOU trying to say that CO2 never hit 600ppm or higher? Not ever?

And instead, said it is "irrelevant". It is most certainly relevant.

Wait... I'm supposed to care about all of the things you say, and the evidence you present, but you immediately dismiss someone who understands more about how molecules and particles behave than you or I, simply because he is a skeptic?

I should dismiss a physicist, and all of his work and knowledge, simply because he disagrees with AGW?

And while these weren't posed as direct questions, you completely avoided them as valid points against AGW:

- The OP!!! NOAA changing data... (admitted by NOAA and corrected)
- ClimateGate (admitted by CRU)
- 15 years of no distinct warming (acknowledged by the IPCC)
- The Himalayan glacier blunder? Remember that, where a "typo" of 35 years instead of 350 was made to say the glacier was going to disappear by 2035? IPCC source
- No "hotspot" occurred.
- Models were WRONG!!!

I already provided a graph with 3 raw source data repositories so you could graph the data yourself. The above illustrate how the science is clearly not "settled".

Last but not least, the one question I will ask, is why does temperature increase before CO2 does?

These are a lot of the same questions that make AGW extremely difficult and implausible to support as a theory.

Rather than argue the science and the work of the papers that have been published, you are trying to find a reason to discredit me personally and attack me by calling me a liar for something that was clearly a misunderstanding on your part.

I look forward to open discussions and discourse, but not with people the likes of you. You are dishonest. Each of the posts I've written to you, you have done nothing more than try to attack my character, the character and integrity of my references instead of the work that is published.

You should be ashamed to call yourself a scientist, if you do. You are clearly a proponent of AGW and not someone who is open to finding truth, just following the truth others lay at your feet.

~Namaste

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I have held this view for about 10 years now....maybe longer.

When I have I ever supported global warming in this forum? Not just this thread. I am well of aware of the environmental problems this planet is facing. There is no need to break things down like a 5 year old. As CO2 goes up O2 goes down....it is speculated that elevated CO2 will have an effect on human behavior....

It does not change the fact that CO2 concentrations are quickly on the increase.

So what solutions do you offer to the problem?

... O2 is not going down, and if it is it will be due to deforestation, not to an increase in CO2... The higher the levels of CO2, the more that plants and trees have for food. Not to mention that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 makes all the green biomass to use water more efficiently, which means they use less water leaving more for humans and animals...

BTW, in case you didn't know the average level of CO2 in apartments and houses with AC or a heater during winter is around 1,000ppm yet at this level people don't die.

...
Basic Information about Concentrations of CO2 in Air
•1,000,000 ppm of a gas = 100 % concentration of the gas, and 10,000 ppm of a gas in air = a 1% concentration.

•At 1% concentration of carbon dioxide CO2 (10,000 parts per million or ppm) and under continuous exposure at that level, such as in an auditorium filled with occupants and poor fresh air ventilation, some occupants are likely to feel drowsy.

•The concentration of carbon dioxide must be over about 2% (20,000 ppm) before most people are aware of its presence unless the odor of an associated material (auto exhaust or fermenting yeast, for instance) is present at lower concentrations.

•Above 2%, carbon dioxide may cause a feeling of heaviness in the chest and/or more frequent and deeper respirations.

•If exposure continues at that level for several hours, minimal "acidosis" (an acid condition of the blood) may occur but more frequently is absent.[/c]

•Breathing rate doubles at 3% CO2 and is four times the normal rate at 5% CO2.

•Toxic levels of carbon dioxide: at levels above 5%, concentration CO2 is directly toxic. [At lower levels we may be seeing effects of a reduction in the relative amount of oxygen rather than direct toxicity of CO2.]

Symptoms of high or prolonged exposure to carbon dioxide include headache, increased heart rate, dizziness, fatigue, rapid breathing, visual and hearing dysfunctions. Exposure to higher levels may cause unconsciousness or death within minutes of exposure.

www.inspectapedia.com...]

We are nowhere near any level for atmospheric CO2 to heavily affect humans. Not to mention that the problems also arise because in a closed building there is little to no fresh air coming in, while outside oxygen is produced during the day by the green biomass of Earth...

So again, your information is incorrect.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I offered solutions to the 'problem' with CO2 earlier on this thread. It is simple, many plants can go from seed to seed bearing and sinking CO2 within a few months. Clearly CO2 is a vital sign.

This plant was once abundant in CO2 and O2 was rare. Now O2 is at over 20% of the air we breathe thanks to the rise of the plant kingdom, long before creatures walked upon the earth this happened. CO2 goes up O2 goes down, very much part of a cycle.

We essentially agree, no need to belittle me please.

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

So now Greven is trying to proclaim that GCMs account for all natural factors that affect the climate and weather extremes?... lol...

Koutsoyiannis, D., A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis, and A. Christofides, On the credibility of climate predictions, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53 (4), 671–684, 2008.

[doc_id=864]

[English]

Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.

www.itia.ntua.gr...

And...

There is not even an attempt to model such complex climate details, as GCMs are too coarse for such purposes. When K. Hasselmann (a leading greenhouse protagonist)was asked why GCMs do not allow for the stratosphere’s warming by the suns ultraviolet radation and its impact on the circulation in the troposphere, he answered: “This aspect is too complex to incorporate it into models”[8]. Since there are other solar-terrestrial relationships which are “too complex” such as, for example, the dynamics of cloud coverage modulated by the solar wind, it is no wonder that the predictions based on GCMs do not conform to climate reality.

plasmaresources.com...

And...

Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
Journal Climate Dynamics
Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
ISSN 0930-7575 (Print) 1432-0894 (Online)
Issue Volume 24, Numbers 7-8 / June, 2005
DOI 10.1007/s00382-005-0020-9
Pages 771-780
Subject Collection Earth and Environmental Science
SpringerLink Date Monday, May 02, 2005


PDF (702.7 KB)HTMLFree Preview

Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
S. M. Dean1 , B. N. Lawrence2, R. G. Grainger1 and D. N. Heuff3

(1) Atmospheric Oceanic and Planetary Physics, Clarendon Laboratory, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
(2) British Atmospheric Data Centre, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Oxfordshire, UK
(3) Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Received: 13 September 2004 Accepted: 25 February 2005 Published online: 27 April 2005

Abstract Observations from the International Satellite Cloud Climatalogy Project (ISCCP) are used to demonstrate that the 19-level HadAM3 version of the United Kingdom Met Office Unified Model does not simulate sufficient high cloud over land. By using low-altitude winds, from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF) Re-Analysis from 1979 to 1994 (ERA-15) to predict the areas of maximum likelihood of orographic wave generation, it is shown that much of the deficiency is likely to be due to the lack of a representation of the orographic cirrus generated by sub-grid scale orography. It is probable that this is a problem in most GCMs.

www.springerlink.com...


Another of the many flaws of GCMs...

The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.

That was not what he expected to find.

"All leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases," he said. "That amplification is a positive feedback. What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space."

The results of this research were published today in the American Geophysical Union's "Geophysical Research Letters" on-line edition. The paper was co-authored by UAHuntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.

www.uah.edu...

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I offered solutions to the 'problem' with CO2 earlier on this thread. It is simple, many plants can go from seed to seed bearing and sinking CO2 within a few months. Clearly CO2 is a vital sign.

This plant was once abundant in CO2 and O2 was rare. Now O2 is at over 20% of the air we breathe thanks to the rise of the plant kingdom, long before creatures walked upon the earth this happened. CO2 goes up O2 goes down, very much part of a cycle.

We essentially agree, no need to belittle me please.

Wrong, as long as deforestation doesn't continue at large scales the more CO2 the more O2 that the green biomass of Earth will produce...

It is obvious you are completely ignorant on how photosynthesis works...

How do you think the levels of Oxygen on Earth increased to 21%?... By magic?... The green biomass of Earth was the major contributor in increasing the levels of oxygen to the levels that exist today...

IF CO2 levels are lowered by sequestration THEN the levels of oxygen on the planet will decrease... Not to mention that before the levels of oxygen lowers to levels that will be fatal for the animal kingdom or the green biomass, what will happen with lower levels of CO2 is that the existing green biomass of Earth (trees, plants, etc) will produce less and less harvests (less food for humans) and there will also be less and less potable water for humans because with lower levels of atmospheric CO2 the more that the green biomass of Earth will need potable water...

Many of the world leaders have been trying to find ways to reduce the population of Earth, and reducing the levels of CO2 is one of the many ways they can do that... The less CO2 in the atmosphere the less harvests (food) and the less water that humans will have...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yes O2 is going down. There is a relationship between CO2 and O2 in the Earth atmosphere. Part of a cycle. The O2 drop is barely noticeable now, however if CO2 continues to rise at an increasing rate, it will become apparent that O2 levels are dropping. My guess is a 500% increase of CO2 is needed before we will be alarmed, it will be a generational problem. We are only at 43% and rising 1% every two years.

I have better things to do than to research this to give the appropriate 'proof'. To proof is there to those with open eyes.

Do NOT belittle me, I offer solutions to this thread you offer insults. Do you think anyone on this board will believe that I do not know how photosynthesis works?

a reply to: jrod

Ah, so not only is AGW a religion for you, but you also make up your own conclusions instead of relying on real science?...

How the hell do you think that plants and trees exhale oxygen during the day? Are you even aware of how photosynthesis works at all? Or are you going to come up with your own lies on how oxygen is produced by plants and trees?...

originally posted by: jrod


...
I have better things to do than to research this to give the appropriate 'proof'. To proof is there to those with open eyes.

Do NOT belittle me, I offer solutions to this thread you offer insults. Do you think anyone on this board will believe that I do not know how photosynthesis works?

Of course you have better things to do... Is that why you keep posting erroneous information while claiming it is true?..

BTW, people do see that you do not know how photosynthesis works...

O2 will only decrease if there is deforestation at large scales.... The Earth could have right now 500-800 ppm CO2 levels in the atmosphere and instead of less oxygen there will be more... Plants and trees use the carbon and exhale the oxygen trapped in CO2 during the day...

You have shown not to know at all what you are talking about...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The WWW overall is not a source of accurate information. I do not know why you would make such an arrogant and demeaning claim that I do not know how photosynthesis works. Are you an American?

Here is a source:

Dr. Windsor, formally at Florida Institute of Technology. Took a class from him in 2003.

originally posted by: jrod

I offered solutions to the 'problem' with CO2 earlier on this thread. It is simple, many plants can go from seed to seed bearing and sinking CO2 within a few months. Clearly CO2 is a vital sign.

Why do I have to quote myself to make a point?


There is ongoing mass scale deforestation. Go outside much?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The WWW overall is not a source of accurate information. I do not know why you would make such an arrogant and demeaning claim that I do not know how photosynthesis works. Are you an American?

Here is a source:

Dr. Windsor, formally at Florida Institute of Technology. Took a class from him in 2003.

Oh wow, so now only the fictional sources, or worse yet radical environmentalists you claim have taught you are the ones that count and everything else is false?... really?...

Please, stop, you are embarrassing yourself the more you post...

I'll rather base my opinions on real science...

First of all, long before CO2 levels increase to even 1,000ppm by anthropogenic means, humans would have already discovered new sources of reliable energy not dependent on oil.

Second of all, enough is enough. Stop giving false information already.

originally posted by: jrod

originally posted by: jrod

I offered solutions to the 'problem' with CO2 earlier on this thread. It is simple, many plants can go from seed to seed bearing and sinking CO2 within a few months. Clearly CO2 is a vital sign.

Why do I have to quote myself to make a point?


There is ongoing mass scale deforestation. Go outside much?

These are real numbers. Within the last few hundred years, the very rightmost x value on this timescale , CO2 increase in the atmosphere has gone asymptotic. Can anyone really believe that there will be no ramifications to our climate from what you see here? If not, please explain why it is not important.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Dr Lazarus is still at FIT. He can verify that Dr. Windsor was indeed there in 2003, and I indeed was enrolled there. Ask Sallie Mae.

my.fit.edu...

There is an email address somewhere on that site or one of the sub-pages to Dr. Lazarus. Proof that I have a genuine PHD to back my claims up.

originally posted by: jrod

Why do I have to quote myself to make a point?


There is ongoing mass scale deforestation. Go outside much?

Solutions arrived by false information and misleading data does not equal "good goal"...

As for deforestation... in case you didn't know it is happening in third world nations. Countries like the U.S. have implemented laws prohibiting the import or use of wood from illegal deforestation.

BTW, in case you didn't know...

NASA satellite data suggest that for more than two decades there’s been a gradual greening of the northern latitudes of Earth.

Researchers confirm that plant life seen above 40 degrees north latitude, which represents a line stretching from New York to Madrid to Beijing, has been growing more vigorously since 1981. One suspected cause is rising temperatures possibly linked to the buildup of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.

Over this same time period, parts of the Northern Hemisphere have become much greener and the growing season has increased by several days. Further, Eurasia appears to be greening more than North America, with more lush vegetation for longer periods of time.
...
Webmaster: Paul Przyborski
NASA Official: Charles Ichoku
Database Updated: July 6, 2014

visibleearth.nasa.gov...

BTW, notice how they say the "suspected" cause is buildup of ghg instead of claiming "it is for certain"... Not to mention that again water vapor is more powerful and more abundant than CO2 but CO2 is being blamed because that way people can be controlled since all life exhales CO2.

Sometimes, there are NASA scientists who try to tell the world the truth under the eye of environmental radical Hansen.

...

Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

www.nasa.gov...

Many scientists and researchers have been trying to warn people about the politics behind the AGW claim, including the following.

January 17, 2005


Chris Landsea Leaves IPCC

Posted to Author: Others | Climate Change | Science Policy: General

This is an open letter to the community from Chris Landsea.

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author - Dr. Kevin Trenberth - to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.
...

cstpr.colorado.edu...

UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears — A Climate Depot Flashback Report


Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.


By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotAugust 21, 2013 9:34 PM

Here is a very small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN’s climate claims and its scientific methods.

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.

UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green Declares ‘A Death Spiral for Climate Alarmism’ – September 30, 2009 – ‘We can expect climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority’ - Dr. Kenneth Green was a Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001
...

www.climatedepot.com...

There are many, many more like them.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Dr Lazarus is still at FIT. He can verify that Dr. Windsor was indeed there in 2003, and I indeed was enrolled there. Ask Sallie Mae.

my.fit.edu...

There is an email address somewhere on that site or one of the sub-pages to Dr. Lazarus. Proof that I have a genuine PHD to back my claims up.

Not one of those claims you made backs your statements...

How about you discuss the topic instead of proclaiming you have a PHd and that's the end of it?...