Is Carbon Dioxide Just a Normal Part of the Atmosphere?

[eclipsenow]

49 Former NASA Scientists Send A Letter Disputing Climate Change​

49 Former NASA Scientists Send A Letter Disputing Climate Change

NASA scientists challenge mainstream climate change narratives, sparking heated debates in the scientific community.

www.businessinsider.com

There is a known contrarian stance amongst geologists towards climate change.
It's because they are largely funded by the fossil fuel industry.
EG: Read this bio from the founder of this group.

Background​

H. Leighton Steward is the President and Chairman of Plants Need CO2, a group founded in 2009 with the mission “to educate the public on the positive effects of additional atmospheric CO2 and help prevent the inadvertent negative impact to human, plant and animal life if we reduce CO2.”

Plants Need CO2 was listed as Number four among Mother Jones‘s “Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial” in December, 2009.2

He is the Chairman of the Institute for the Study of Earth and Man (ISEM) Board of Trustees, and was Vice Chairman of the American oil and gas company Burlington Resources, Inc. until his retirement in 2000.

According to his profile at EOG Resources (formerly Enron Oil and Gas Company) where he is a director, Steward has extensive experience in the oil and gas exploration and production industry and has also worked with The Louisiana Land and Exploration Company as President, Chief Operating Officer and, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer from 1989 until its acquisition by Burlington Resources Inc. in 1997.3

Stance on Climate Change​

“[C]arbon dioxide (CO2) is not a major contributor to current global warming nor to Earth’s paleoclimates.”4

Key Quotes​

“More CO2 is needed to bolster plant life, which turns the gas into oxygen while also providing food.”

H. Leighton Steward

H. Leighton Steward Credentials Background H. Leighton Steward is the President and Chairman of Plants Need CO2, a group founded in 2009 with the mission “to educate the public on the positive effects of additional atmospheric CO2 and help prevent the inadvertent negative impact to human, plant...

www.desmog.com

OK - let's just look at that last one for now - unless you want to get into more of their claims?

Just saying “Co2 = plant food, therefore more plant food will be good for them and force them to grow bigger” is about as sensible as saying “Pizza is human food, therefore more Pizza will be good for them and FORCE them to grow bigger!” We might in truth get bigger. But the trite summary above ignores diabetes, heart disease, circulatory problems and ... death. Plants are also vulnerable to various problems if they get too much CO2 'plant food'. It messes with their self-defence toxins. Some produce too little; others too much.

Less toxic makes them more vulnerable to bug attacks.

[The “CO2 is Good for Plants” Crock. Turns out — not so much.

More toxic renders them inedible to us or livestock.

ABC Radio National

Radio National goes beyond the news headlines to examine a diverse range of topics, including arts and culture, business and current affairs, health, science and technology, Indigenous culture and issues, and religion and ethics.

www.abc.net.au

Also, let's not forget the carbon impacts on atmospheric temperatures and increased moisture movement. Every extra degree of temperature allows the atmosphere to carry 5% more moisture. (Laws of physics.) That means increased evaporation and drought in drying areas, and increased precipitation in dumping areas. It means increased floods and famines.

Much more here.

"The consequences of climate change become increasingly bad after each additional degree of warming, with the consequences of 2°C being quite damaging and the consequences of 4°C being potentially catastrophic."

Positives and negatives of global warming

<p>The negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health, economy and environment far outweigh any positives.</p>

skepticalscience.com

 

[prodromos]

I don't put my stock in any of the above studies. All the coastal areas I spent holidays as a child are still there several decades later. None of them are under water.

 

[eclipsenow]

I don't put my stock in any of the above studies. All the coastal areas I spent holidays as a child are still there several decades later. None of them are under water.

Of course you don't - because respecting science isn't your thing.
A perfect example of your lack of respect for science? Well - your childhood beaches for starters. What do you actually know about the climate predictions for sea level rise? When did climate science predict those beaches might be under water? How do they measure sea level rise? What are the predictions?

You have tried to justify your ignorance of repeatable, verifiable plant chemistry by sharing your ignorance of sea-level rise.
Keep it up! You're making my case for me!

 

[Tuur]

I don't put my stock in any of the above studies. All the coastal areas I spent holidays as a child are still there several decades later. None of them are under water.

Try this:

1. Pick a coastal elevation above sea level
2. Take a predicted annual rate of sea level rise for that location.
3. Divide the elevation by the rate.
4. The result is how long it would take for water to reach that elevation.

A variation of this is to take a prediction that by year X, geographic feature Y will be under water, look up the elevation of geographic feature Y, then divide that by the predicted number of years to get how fast seas would have to rise to get to that point.

This simple exercise cuts through the hyperbole. It doesn't argue for or against AGW; it simply double checks estimates.

Then you find something like this: The Vanishing Islands That Failed to Vanish
Note that this article is behind a pay wall, but if lucky you'll find that there are more islands in the Maldives now, not less. Not what was predicted. The article has various theories about why there are more Maldives above the waves than there were, but the main thing is that the prediction didn't pan out due to unexpected factors.

 

[eclipsenow]

What prediction didn't pan out?
Can you link to the original prediction - or at least give me the name of the 'failed study'? Because the Maldives are not meant to be underwater now - who ever said they were?

Honestly!

https://www.unicef.org/rosa/blog/were-being-swallowed-ocean-and-running-out-freshwater

 

[prodromos]

Of course you don't - because respecting science isn't your thing.

Amazing how wrong your assumptions about me are.

A perfect example of your lack of respect for science? Well - your childhood beaches for starters. What do you actually know about the climate predictions for sea level rise? When did climate science predict those beaches might be under water? How do they measure sea level rise? What are the predictions?

I have read plenty from both sides. I usually find they align with whoever is funding the studies.

You have tried to justify your ignorance of repeatable, verifiable plant chemistry by sharing your ignorance of sea-level rise.
Keep it up! You're making my case for me!

You've made a lot of assumptions based on a single post. Tells me a lot about the reliability of your methodology.

 

[eclipsenow]

(I withdraw this post)

 

[prodromos]

Well - your behaviour rings true of most climate deniers I meet.

Do you get out much?

For instance, did you answer the questions about which failed climate prediction you're even attempting to smear as 'failed' - or just change the subject and get all defensive and talk about yourself a bit?

I just said I don't put much stock in them. I haven't attempted to smear any of them as "failed". You seem to have me confused with someoneelse

See - a GOOD comeback would have involved some actual evidence of your case. Instead it's all about what a nice guy you are!

Where did I say anything about what kind of a guy I am?

Um, so how about answering the question?

I generally don't answer questions from people who act like jerks. Maybe you have confused me with someone you have a history with that led you to respond in the manner you did, but I have no desire to continue with you.

 

[eclipsenow]

Dude - you are the one who jumped in and said "I don't put much stock in the above studies" about plant chemistry changing after having too much CO2 - and how did you debunk it? Your childhood memories of beaches.

This is a plant. This is a beach.

Cause those 2 subjects are really related!

As far as I can tell - sea level rise is right on track! The Maldives wiki shows a 1988 Canberra Times article that predicted 20 to 30 cm sea level rise within 30 years would be 'catastrophic' for the Maldives - and here we are and what do you know? We're at about 24 cm sea-level rise since 1800 - and it's getting really serious there - but there might be new hope.

Sea level rise​

[edit]

In 1988, Maldivian authorities believed that rising seas could already entirely cover the nation within the next 30 years, stating that "an estimated rise of 20 to 30 centimetres in the next 20 to 40 years [would] be 'catastrophic'".[3] By 2021, 90% of islands in the Maldives experienced severe erosion, 97% of the country no longer had fresh groundwater, and more than 50% of the national budget was being spent on efforts to adapt to the effects of climate change. The country lost one of its primary natural defenses in a 2016 bleaching event that affected about 60% of its coral reefs.[1]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report predicted the upper limit of the sea level rises will be 59 centimetres (23 in) by 2100, which means that most of the Maldives' 200 inhabited islands may need to be abandoned.[4] According to researchers from the University of Southampton, the Maldives are the third most endangered island nation due to flooding from climate change as a percentage of population.[5]

In 2020, a three-year study at the University of Plymouth which looked at the Maldives and the Marshall Islands, found that tides move sediment to create a higher elevation, a morphological response that could help low-lying islands adjust to sea level rise and keep the islands habitable. The research also reported that sea walls were compromising the islands’ ability to adjust to rising sea levels and that island drowning is an inevitable outcome for islands with coastal structures like sea walls.[6] Hideki Kanamaru, natural resources officer with the Food and Agriculture Organization in Asia-Pacific, said the study provided a "new perspective" on how island nations could tackle the challenge of sea-level rise, and that even if islands can adapt naturally to higher seas by raising their own crests, humans still needed to double down on global warming and protection for island populations.[7]

 

[prodromos]

If that was your opening salvo - what am I meant to make of the fact that you linked to something behind a paywall? And made a bunch of assertions about what it says?

You definitely have me confused with somebody else. I've not posted any links nor made any assertions.

 

[eclipsenow]

You definitely have me confused with somebody else. I've not posted any links nor made any assertions.

Ah - Tuur posted the link - not you. (I will edit my posts to you about the link).

But this is your opening salvo. It's just so random! Even if sea-level rise was proved beyond all doubt, by all peer-reviewed organisations, to be completely false - what bearing would that have on plant chemistry? Which is what you were responding to - whether you knew it or not!

But as it is - you have submitted no evidence about sea level rise whatsoever. So I can ignore your contribution all together.

 

[timewerx]

0.04 %.

0.5% is still a low percentage but 0.5% of CO2 concentration will cause general discomfort, weakness, headaches as well as cognitive skills significantly diminished.

At higher concentrations, CO2 begins to become toxic. At about 10% concentration, death.

 

[prodromos]

Ah - Tuur posted the link - not you. (I will edit my posts to you about the link).

But this is your opening salvo. It's just so random! Even if sea-level rise was proved beyond all doubt, by all peer-reviewed organisations, to be completely false - what bearing would that have on plant chemistry? Which is what you were responding to - whether you knew it or not!

But as it is - you have submitted no evidence about sea level rise whatsoever. So I can ignore your contribution all together.

View attachment 352581

That's a very odd apology.

 

[eclipsenow]

That's a very odd apology.

What - you want me to get down on my hands and knees and beg your forgiveness for talking about a link?
Get over yourself. I deleted that bit.

What didn't I delete? The stuff about you being a climate denier. Why?

Because this was your opening salvo. There I was - pointing out that the "Co2 is plant food" attack is scientifically invalid - and you posted this.
Care to explain?

 

[prodromos]

What - you want me to get down on my hands and knees and beg your forgiveness for talking about a link?
Get over yourself. I deleted that bit.

What didn't I delete? The stuff about you being a climate denier. Why?

Because this was your opening salvo. There I was - pointing out that the "Co2 is plant food" attack is scientifically invalid - and you posted this.
Care to explain?

View attachment 352582

If I unintentionally made false claims about someone else in a public forum, I would immediately apologise. Perhaps that's just me and my Christian upbringing.

 

[eclipsenow]

If I unintentionally made false claims about someone else in a public forum, I would immediately apologise. Perhaps that's just me and my Christian upbringing.

What was it I posted that was so offensive? I'll get to that - but first - as you say you're a Christian - are you going to be honest with everyone on this list - and admit how this all started? That I was explaining what the experts say about "CO2 is plant food" and the realities of plant chemistry - and you came in shooting your mouth off about beaches?

Now - what terrible thing did I say? Let's see.... I said...

If that was your opening salvo - what am I meant to make of the fact that you linked to something behind a paywall? And made a bunch of assertions about what it says?​

Wow - that's just terrible! Call a counsellor!
Dude, it was inaccurate so I deleted it.
That's as good as you're going to get.

 

[prodromos]

What was it I posted that was so offensive? I'll get to that - but first - as you say you're a Christian - are you going to be honest with everyone on this list - and admit how this all started? That I was explaining what the experts say about "CO2 is plant food" and the realities of plant chemistry - and you came in shooting your mouth off about beaches?
View attachment 352586


Now - what terrible thing did I say? Let's see.... I said...

If that was your opening salvo - what am I meant to make of the fact that you linked to something behind a paywall? And made a bunch of assertions about what it says?​

Wow - that's just terrible! Call a counsellor!
Dude, it was inaccurate so I deleted it.
That's as good as you're going to get.

My response was to the thread. I didn't reply to your post or I would have quoted it.
All your posts to me have been rude and aggressive. I simply posted my opinion and you describe it as "shooting off my mouth" and my "opening salvo". You've called me ignorant and accused me of having no respect for science, and you don't seem to have a problem with that. You may have valuable and accurate insights into this topic but you've given me little reason to have any respect for your opinion.

 

[eclipsenow]

My response was to the thread. I didn't reply to your post or I would have quoted it.
All your posts to me have been rude and aggressive. I simply posted my opinion and you describe it as "shooting off my mouth" and my "opening salvo". You've called me ignorant and accused me of having no respect for science, and you don't seem to have a problem with that. You may have valuable and accurate insights into this topic but you've given me little reason to have any respect for your opinion.

OK then. I'll try to change my tone - but I'm still wary because of your opinion on beaches.

Please don't respect my opinion. I'm not a scientist - if anything I have a social sciences background.
If I shoot my own mouth off without quoting a source - and just give my opinion on scientific matters - disregard it.
This isn't about me.
It's about the science.

It's about what they say - not what we might think about our own anecdotal observations.
EG: Like childhood beaches.

Global sea levels have risen 20 to 24 cm - depending on where we are discussing.

Did you know it can be different for different continents? I thought - in my layman's opinion - it would be like a bathtub and be even globally. But I was wrong. There are a number of scientific reasons it can be different for different areas.

This stuff is complex - and requires training and experience and expertise.

Sometimes our opinion is actually uninformed, and we're all suffering a bit of Dunning-Kruger's.

The world is big and complex - and some of us are way too prone to shooting our mouth off about things we know nothing about.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

Correlating atmospheric CO₂ concentrations and sea levels involves synthesizing historical data on both metrics. Here’s how we can approach this:

Table: Historical Atmospheric CO₂ Concentrations and Sea Levels​

Time Period	Atmospheric CO₂ Concentration (ppm)	Approximate Sea Level Relative to Present
20,000 years ago	~180 ppm (Last Glacial Maximum)	~120-130 meters lower
10,000 years ago	~260 ppm (Early Holocene)	~6-10 meters lower
5,000 years ago	~270-280 ppm	~1-2 meters lower
Pre-Industrial (1800s)	~280 ppm	~0 meters (baseline)
Present (2024)	~420 ppm	~0.2 meters higher

Explanation of Data:​

1. CO₂ Concentrations:
   • 20,000 years ago: CO₂ levels were lower during the Last Glacial Maximum, around 180 ppm.
   • 10,000 years ago: CO₂ levels began rising as the Holocene epoch began, reaching around 260 ppm.
   • 5,000 years ago: CO₂ concentrations were roughly 270-280 ppm.
   • Pre-Industrial: CO₂ concentrations were around 280 ppm before the industrial revolution.
   • Present: CO₂ concentrations have risen to about 420 ppm due to industrial activities and deforestation.
2. Sea Levels:
   • 20,000 years ago: Sea levels were approximately 120-130 meters lower than present.
   • 10,000 years ago: Sea levels were about 6-10 meters lower.
   • 5,000 years ago: Sea levels were roughly 1-2 meters lower.
   • Pre-Industrial: Sea levels were at or near the baseline for historical records.
   • Present: Sea levels have risen approximately 0.2 meters from pre-industrial levels.

Graph: Correlation Between Atmospheric CO₂ Concentrations and Sea Levels​

To visualize this relationship, you can plot a graph with the following structure:

1. X-Axis: Atmospheric CO₂ Concentrations (ppm)
2. Y-Axis: Sea Level Relative to Present (meters)

Here’s a simplified version of how the data points might be plotted:

CO₂ Concentration (ppm)	Sea Level Relative to Present (meters)
180	-130
260	-10
270-280	-2
280	0
420	+0.2

Graph Description:

• Trend: As CO₂ concentrations increase, sea levels have generally risen, reflecting the impact of greenhouse gases on global temperatures and ice melt.
• Historical Correlation: The historical data suggests that lower CO₂ concentrations were associated with lower sea levels, and rising CO₂ concentrations correlate with rising sea levels.

source: Chat GPT

 

[Dale]

Correlating atmospheric CO₂ concentrations and sea levels involves synthesizing historical data on both metrics. Here’s how we can approach this:

Table: Historical Atmospheric CO₂ Concentrations and Sea Levels​

Time Period	Atmospheric CO₂ Concentration (ppm)	Approximate Sea Level Relative to Present
20,000 years ago	~180 ppm (Last Glacial Maximum)	~120-130 meters lower
10,000 years ago	~260 ppm (Early Holocene)	~6-10 meters lower
5,000 years ago	~270-280 ppm	~1-2 meters lower
Pre-Industrial (1800s)	~280 ppm	~0 meters (baseline)
Present (2024)	~420 ppm	~0.2 meters higher

Explanation of Data:​

1. CO₂ Concentrations:
   • 20,000 years ago: CO₂ levels were lower during the Last Glacial Maximum, around 180 ppm.
   • 10,000 years ago: CO₂ levels began rising as the Holocene epoch began, reaching around 260 ppm.
   • 5,000 years ago: CO₂ concentrations were roughly 270-280 ppm.
   • Pre-Industrial: CO₂ concentrations were around 280 ppm before the industrial revolution.
   • Present: CO₂ concentrations have risen to about 420 ppm due to industrial activities and deforestation.
2. Sea Levels:
   • 20,000 years ago: Sea levels were approximately 120-130 meters lower than present.
   • 10,000 years ago: Sea levels were about 6-10 meters lower.
   • 5,000 years ago: Sea levels were roughly 1-2 meters lower.
   • Pre-Industrial: Sea levels were at or near the baseline for historical records.
   • Present: Sea levels have risen approximately 0.2 meters from pre-industrial levels.

Graph: Correlation Between Atmospheric CO₂ Concentrations and Sea Levels​

To visualize this relationship, you can plot a graph with the following structure:

1. X-Axis: Atmospheric CO₂ Concentrations (ppm)
2. Y-Axis: Sea Level Relative to Present (meters)

Here’s a simplified version of how the data points might be plotted:

CO₂ Concentration (ppm)	Sea Level Relative to Present (meters)
180	-130
260	-10
270-280	-2
280	0
420	+0.2

Graph Description:

• Trend: As CO₂ concentrations increase, sea levels have generally risen, reflecting the impact of greenhouse gases on global temperatures and ice melt.
• Historical Correlation: The historical data suggests that lower CO₂ concentrations were associated with lower sea levels, and rising CO₂ concentrations correlate with rising sea levels.

source: Chat GPT

JesusFollower: "source: Chat GPT"

Chat GPT isn't a source for anything. It is a chatbot designed to mimic human intelligence. I won't take a ventriloquist's dummy as a source and I can't take Chat GPT as a source.