The Benefits of Carbon Dioxide

So, I go and read Vendor's article, which was in the Daily "Fail" on the 29th.

Here's a quote I gleaned directly from the article:

"Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases."

Typical argument, half true, cherry picked data, guilty by omission. So, there's your facts.

Using "facts" in an argument with global warming deniers is like using logic and reason with a 5 year old.

Concussion -- vendor backs his post with sources, you simply state deniers. Who are they and if your conspiracy was that big of a deal, I would think it would have shown up in the first two pages of a google search when you type in east anglia climatic research unit. I guess we just have to take your word.

adksman, you said, "about the only people not buying climate change are those who listen to Faux News." I believe you are referring to Fox News, the cable news channel that has been watched by more viewers than any other -- and by huge numbers -- for years. Pretty big crowd you're talking about.

Vendor, is that the same East Anglia Climatic Research Unit that deniers convicted of conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, and private admissions of flaws in their public claims?

They seem pretty reputable.

science ? 2100, maybe !

Right again!!!!!!!

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years By David Rose

Last updated at 5:38 AM on 29th January 2012

Comments (337) Share

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years. The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century. Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997. A painting, dated 1684, by Abraham Hondius depicts one of many frost fairs on the River Thames du

I actually had to read it three times!

I can't spell either, that's why it angers me when people have to resort to calling people out for misspellings. I must admit to a bit of dyslexia at times in my words. Thank god for spellcheck.

I am.

You ain't been arounb long, thats done to find the 'monks'. I got you to read it and no matter what the seed is planted . gerbils

I think we should listen to the guy who can barely put together cohesive sentences on this one.

Nature 476, 43–50 (04 August 2011) doi:10.1038/nature10322 Published online 03 August 2011 Earth’s climate is warming as a result of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuel combustion. Anthropogenic emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases, such as methane, nitrous oxide and ozone-depleting substances (largely from sources other than fossil fuels), also contribute significantly to warming. Some non-CO2 greenhouse gases have much shorter lifetimes than CO2, so reducing their emissions offers an additional opportunity to lessen future climate change. Although it is clear that sustainably reducing the warming influence of greenhouse gases will be possible only with substantial cuts in emissions of CO2, reducing non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions would be a relatively quick way of contributing to this goal.

WOW, your comments are so misguided based from one fact, you should comment for Fox news! Yes, during past climate change events CO2 levels rose as a result of the warming. That's what makes this current trend so alarming. What's your next post going to be? We should be teaching intelligent design in public schools to refute evolution?

Good point Savant. The "good" news is that the percentage of those holding the creationist view is on the decline and maybe that will translate to more acceptance of the truth about climate change, though probably too late to do any good. Last I knew, Fox News was still on the air.

I hate to say, but in saying "many people don't believe in global warming" Vendor may be right. Consider this, roughly half of the country is republican. So the huge number of people denying global warming should not be a surprise to anyone.

Heck, 40% of Americans are creationists. Assuming that the majority of creationists vote republican (which is a fair assumption) That's almost half right there.

The other 10% or 20% probably work directly in fields that are directly linked to causing climate change. Now consider that 22% of creationists hold post graduate college degrees and we have a perfect storm.

It's sort of like evolution, except we are going backwards! America, the great land of anti-intellectualism!

Vendor...about the only people not buying climate change are those who listen to Faux News. Let me put it this way...the CO2 that is put into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels by humans is measured in the BILLIONS of tons (forget the amount produced through natural processes). That has never been done in the history of the planet. Use common sense. Do you honestly think that you can introduce billions of tons of anything into the atmosphere with no consequences?

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising. The amount of CO2 converted to O2 by plants can be debated. That does not change the fact that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising.Just like it always has during past warming events.The big difference this time is the time scale. Past spikes in CO2 happened on a geologic time scale. This time it is happening in one human life span.

Vendor, Don't pretend to speak for the majority. All claims that climategate had were overwhelmingly debunked. Even the Koch brothers funded, Berkeley Earth Project (BEP) found that anthropogenic global warming is real. I'm not going to check the weak link you posted, it's not hard to Google up threads where people argue that slavery was beneficial for black people, and claim that Africans would still be nomadic tribesmen if not for all the wonderful things white people have done for Africa.

My point being, the ideas that you're a political ideologue, scientifically ignorant, a homophobe, or a racist aren't mutually exclusive. They're just subsets of the fact that you're human garbage.

When in reality, you are nothing. Just thought I'd make that clear.

Concussion most people are not buying global warming anymore. Just read the climate gate emails and you will know why. The earth has warmed and cooled millions of times and only arrogant human fools would attribute it to themselves. As Melty the Polar Bear says "Only you can stop 5.5 billion years of climate change.

***********john-daly****/hockey/hockey.htm

London – The global uptake of carbon by land plants may be up to 45 per cent more than previously thought. This is the conclusion of an international team of scientists, based on the variability of heavy oxygen atoms in the carbon dioxide of the atmosphere driven by the El Niño effect. As the oxygen atoms in carbon dioxide were converted faster than expected during the El Niño years, current estimates for the uptake of carbon by plants are probably too low. These should be corrected upwards, say the researchers in the current issue of the scientific journal NATURE. Instead of 120 petagrams of carbon, the annual global vegetation uptake probably lies between 150 and 175 petagrams of carbon. This value is a kind of gross national product for land plants and indicates how productive the biosphere of the Earth is. The reworking of this so-called global primary productivity would have significant consequences for the coupled carbon cycle-climate model used in climate research to predict fu

I'm pretty sure that that we're the only country on the planet who pretend that man-made global climate change is imaginary.

Most other countries consider global warming real and just argue about what to do about it.

I guess everybody want's to pretend to be a scientist. I don't listen to people who spout scientific theory and work as a prison guard or something. Save the science for the scientists.

I guess it's the same as I wouldn't ask the bartender at Captain Cooks to remove my gall bladder.

very misinformed opinion. Go out and do some research about the carbon cycle. This is all well established science. We know that rising CO2 causes warming. It always has and always will. I know that people do not want to admit there is a serious issue here, but it is very real. I know I am biased because I have worked in the air quality monitoring field for about twenty years. So I guess to get an unbiased opinion you would have to ask someone who does not know what they are talking about.

good article

This editorial reminds me of of the infomercial that starts out: "Eat your way to a slim healthy body, without ever breaking a sweat!"

It's a subtle blend of truth with complete misrepresentations of basic earth processes. It would be correct, if plants that readily absorb CO2 existed above the Troposphere. Once CO2 exits the primary layer of the atmosphere (tropopause) through a diffusion/convection process, it remains in the stratosphere where it behaves like a greenhouse gas.