The Politically Motivated Science of Climatology and the Demonization of Carbon

Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

I did a search and did not see it come up.... so here goes.

Interesting article really.. as it mentions a few facts I think many would easily miss.

The plant food known as carbon dioxide was demonized. In 2013, the figure of 400 parts per million (PPM) was said to be a “tipping point.” It was said to be an unprecedented number — the “highest ever recorded,” and certain to cause catastrophic global warming if not curtailed immediately.

But the first accurate measurements of atmospheric CO2 began in the 1950s. Those 60 some-odd-years are hardly a long enough sample size. Back then, CO2 levels were measured at 314ppm, which makes 400ppm seem like a gigantic increase. But even at that 400ppm number, Carbon dioxide makes up 0.04 percent of the Earth’s atmosphere.

Another thing that climate scientists won’t tell you is that complex plant life depends on having at least 150ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. Scientists estimate that carbon dioxide during the last ice age was dangerously low, only about 200ppm. It’s entirely possible to have too little CO2 in the atmosphere.

The Politically Motivated Science of Climatology and the Demonization of Carbon

What I found interesting were the numbers given... Even at 400ppm, it is still only .04% of the atmosphere... if truly accurate, it puts a more proper perspective on the CO2 debate. And the minimum of 150 ppm for plants to live...again, if truly accurate, helps with needed reality perspectives with thoughts to CO2 and it's "elimination".

In reality, the WORST warming gas by far is plain old water vapour. Following the mindset of CO2 elimination... I suppose stopping all rain on the planet is needed to really make a dent in global warming contributors??? Ironic question folks..

Another thing that isn't even mentioned is the amount of CO2 being put in the atmosphere by the abnormally high amount of volcanoes going off around the world for a few years at least.

I don't know the numbers, but I would imagine their is a huge amount of CO2 coming from volcanoes. We are/have been experiencing higher than average volcanism planet wide. Regardless, it still is a sizeable contributor I would think.

I know just a small handful of people do cause big damage to the planet. One prime example is Fukushima Japan... a small handful of people totally screwed over the Pacific Ocean forever probably, with a shaky nudge from "mother nature" combined with dodgy engineering in a known active earthquake/tsunami zone.

I think a lot of the carbon credit scheme, or scam; as some might call it; was basically profit driven. It was a money making enterprise for many people. Al Gore has done well...for one example of a "carbon scare millionaire".

I still maintain that due to the Gulf Stream's strong weakening, that the UK, and Europe will continue to suffer more severe winters and storms until the Gulf Stream somehow restores itself enough to offset the climate change we live with now.

If they want to really make a difference for the oceans, somehow "mine" or get rid of all the bloody plastics, and medicines in the oceans... They are starting to find micro-plastics in fish for sale, and opioids in shell fish.... for sale..to eat...

Slurp up those steamed mussels folks; and get a years dose of oestrogen, and opioids for a pain free life, and with enough luck, plenty of plutonium from Fukushima, so you can glow in the dark, and save money on night light power usage. Consume mass quantities maybe wind up with X-ray vision?

To me, the oceans are the elephant in the living room no one is talking about. Atmospheric CO2 is a very minor concern when the entire Pacific Ocean is in severe stress. And they will most likely wind up dumping the over flowing radioactive water tanks into the ocean soon...They got no place to put the bad water... so, in the ocean it will go. They have done it already at least a couple of times.

Anyhow, the sun and certain cycles are the biggest climate drivers...

With that, expect cooling to continue until the old Sun arcs up again from it's solar minimum type behaviour.

Pravdaseeker

a reply to: pravdaseeker

Bravo!

Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

a reply to: nwtrucker

Thanks for that nwtrucker...

I suppose I would just like to see some real perspectives on this big issue of CO2; is it the "thing" to distract the masses away from an entire oceans eco-system breaking down?

I do know a long time ago, the CO2 levels were much higher.. and one time the earth was ice free that they know of..so people didn't have any influence on those times for sure. "Nature", and things that drive it are by and large the significant climate drivers. The Sun, major ocean currents, like the Gulf Stream for example, the warm tropics spawning typhoons, etc.

I still can not help but think society can and probably will blow a huge bundle of money on CO2 legislation and removal; only to have it "wiped out"/grossly offset by another volcano or two going off somewhere.

Pravdaseeker

This ties in with pollution though. To much in the air and we get smog and can't breathe properly. The plants love it, of course. But us humans have a hard time with too much.

a reply to: pravdaseeker

Even at 400ppm, it is still only .04% of the atmosphere... if truly accurate, it puts a more proper perspective on the CO2 debate.

Yes.

0.04% of the atmosphere. Most of which is transparent to infrared radiation and so has no effect on radiative forcing. CO2 provides about 20% of the radiative forcing. Most of the rest is due to water vapor but water vapor content is dependant upon temperature as well as being highly variable. CO2 content is not. Some forcing is good, if it weren't for CO2, the Earth would be a colder place. More forcing is not necessarily good. What increasing atmospheric CO2 levels means to the oceans is not clear, but chemistry tells us that they will become more acidic.

Scientists estimate that carbon dioxide during the last ice age was dangerously low, only about 200ppm.

Yeah. Cooler oceans can absorb more CO2. But CO2 levels have varied some on their own. But then people came along. That 400ppm isn't going to be going down anytime soon, but it's pretty certain to continue to go up. Along with global temperatures.

I still can not help but think society can and probably will blow a huge bundle of money on CO2 legislation and removal; only to have it "wiped out"/grossly offset by another volcano or two going off somewhere.

Humans produce far more CO2 than volcanoes do. But, in fact, large volcanic eruptions tend to cool the planet by sending sulphates high into the atmosphere. It's a short lived effect though.

Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

a reply to: amazing

Thanks amazing, yep, some cities are just too darn polluted...

I am reminded of the air alerts from some of those huge industrial centers in China. They come up in other cities around the world, but China does seem to have the most alerts.

Many places never did put in pollution control equipment.

For example in Mexico, some coal fired power plants have little to no controls on them. Their stacks are dark and filthy. Most coal fired stations in the "west" you can't see a emission from the stack. It is very clear. little to no particulates basically.

Australia get a real bad rap from the climatologists... saying Oz has the highest CO2 emissions...

Well that is "per capita"... Since we are the size of the lower 48 states of the USA, with only 26 million souls; we get vilified by statistics presented in a dodgy manner. Ha!

Thanks for your thoughts.

Pravdaseeker

a reply to: pravdaseeker

I'll be gentle...

First - your source is very 'politically' motivated and not always 'factual':

RIGHT BIAS These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes . Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.

Factual Reporting: MIXED

Notes: The New American (TNA) is a print magazine published twice a month by American Opinion Publishing Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the John Birch Society. Displays right wing bias in reporting and does not always follow the consensus of science. The New American is right biased and mixed factually. (7/19/2016) Updated (4/6/2017)

mediabiasfactcheck.com...

The John Birch Society - is not a bulwark of science by any measure.

This is easy to see with the very first line you quote "... the plant food known as C02."

Really - a plant food - it's an fundamental element (look up the word).

The implication is that more CO2 is good for plant life.

Here's a quote from a non-biased, factual source.... The New Scientist:

These sources consist of legitimate science or are evidence based through the use of credible scientific sourcing. Legitimate science follows the scientific method, is unbiased and does not use emotional words. These sources also respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field and strive to publish peer reviewed science.

Some sources in this category may have a slight political bias, but adhere to scientific principles. Factual Reporting: VERY HIGH

Notes: New Scientist is a UK-based weekly English-language international science magazine, founded in 1956. Since 1996 it has run a website dedicated to science news and discovery. (8/20/2016)

mediabiasfactcheck.com...

Here's the quote, and I want to point out a couple of things:

According to some accounts, the rise in carbon dioxide will usher in a new golden age where food production will be higher than ever before and most plants and animals will thrive as never before.

If it sounds too good to be true, that’s because it is.

CO2 is the source of the carbon that plants turn into organic compounds, and it is well established that higher CO2 levels can have a fertilising effect on many plants, boosting growth by as much as a third.

However, some plants already have mechanisms for concentrating CO2 in their tissues, known as C4 photosynthesis, so higher CO2 will not boost the growth of C4 plants.

www.newscientist.com...

Now let's look at this lead. It acknowledges the argument as sound (doesn't use inflammatory language), It further acknowledges some truth to the argument (as far as it goes) and it argues that it is not a robust argument and presents the reasons (backs with facts) that it is not useful in any 'climate argument' as the article progresses.

When you see hyperbole (look it up), when potential counter arguments are not addressed and only facts in support of the Main argument are offered you can be certain that an article, essay, opinion is agenda based.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Really - a plant food - it's an fundamental element (look up the word).

Hmmm, pretty sure carbon and oxygen are elements...carbon dioxide, not so much. Just saying.

originally posted by: amazing
This ties in with pollution though. To much in the air and we get smog and can't breathe properly. The plants love it, of course. But us humans have a hard time with too much.

So , carbon dioxide is smog ? A pollutant ? Lets get rid of that stuff . Ban it.
What about that dihydride monoxide . So much of that pollutant in the air , it actually falls to earth as a liquid . Responsible for killing millions. Ban that too

a reply to: Phage

Humans produce far more CO2 than volcanoes do.

So we ban humans.. Problem solved.

Dear ATS Readers, Writers,
a reply to: FyreByrd

Thanks FyreByrd... I respect your opinions, but there is no denying plants do much better in a CO2 enriched atmosphere.

example

At that link is just one example of how many plants flourished under enhanced CO2 concentrations. The best for most of the plants in the study was around 10,000 ppm.

I am not advocating it, or wanting it, it is what it is... plants do better with higher concentrations of CO2, is it then a "food"?
Pretty vital part of photosynthesis if I recall Biology classes.

Global CO2 levels were determined over time, and the numbers are out there for those who study those things.

John Birch Society didn't invent the numbers.. Regardless of how controversial they may be in todays oddball intolerant society.

Pravdaseeker

a reply to: FyreByrd

I looked at your source Media Bias Fact Check. Here's what they say about Above Top Secret:
Above Top Secret

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE

Factual Reporting: LOW

Notes: Above Top Secret is a right wing bias conspiracy site. It has all the themes you would expect. Mostly though, Above Top Secret, does not like liberal politics and demonstrates a strong right wing bias in reporting and wording. (1/13/2017)

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: FyreByrd

Really - a plant food - it's an fundamental element (look up the word).

Hmmm, pretty sure carbon and oxygen are elements...carbon dioxide, not so much. Just saying.

I stand corrected - molecule then. Thank you!

originally posted by: pravdaseeker
Dear ATS Readers, Writers,
a reply to: FyreByrd

Thanks FyreByrd... I respect your opinions, but there is no denying plants do much better in a CO2 enriched atmosphere.

example

At that link is just one example of how many plants flourished under enhanced CO2 concentrations. The best for most of the plants in the study was around 10,000 ppm.

I am not advocating it, or wanting it, it is what it is... plants do better with higher concentrations of CO2, is it then a "food"?
Pretty vital part of photosynthesis if I recall Biology classes.

Global CO2 levels were determined over time, and the numbers are out there for those who study those things.

John Birch Society didn't invent the numbers.. Regardless of how controversial they may be in todays oddball intolerant society.

Pravdaseeker

CO2 works in the short term only according to the literature. In the long term, the degradation of other plant necessities has to be factored in and there appears to be a leveling effect of some sort.

I'm surely not an expert.

My points about legit vs bogus scientific discourse remain valid. There is some truth to the claim and all good lies are based in truth.

a reply to: pravdaseeker

At that link is just one example of how many plants flourished under enhanced CO2 concentrations. The best for most of the plants in the study was around 10,000 ppm.

What else was provided for those plants, besides an abundance of CO2? All the water and nutrients they required?

The effects of elevated CO2 on plants can vary depending on other environmental factors. While elevated CO2 makes carbon more available, plants also require other resources including minerals obtained from the soil. Elevated CO2 does not directly make these mineral elements more available and, as noted above, may even decrease the uptake of some elements. The ability of plants to respond to elevated CO2 with increased photosynthesis and growth may therefore be limited under conditions of low mineral availability.

www.nature.com...


So it's not so cut and dried and to hitch one's wagon to "CO2 is plant food" as if it will abrogate the ill effects of a warming world is a fool's errand.

Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

a reply to: Phage

Greetings Phage, I appreciate the effort and graphs, etc you put into your reply, good response.

You mentioned sulphates... which volcanoes produce. Acid rain? Big drops in pH of rain, (no pun intended), have been recorded after increased volcanism, which we are having right now.

What was going on 125,000 years ago? Or the timeframe of another previous CO2 peak on your graph you provided? Not being disrespectful but only curious. I saw something that said 125,000 years ago was the Penultimate Interglacial Period. Also said it was warmer due to well known changes in the Earth's orbit? OK, not sure what that is about, but..many previous spikes.

Volcanic eruptions, if bad enough could spell doom for the ice caps. By getting covered in ash, the "albedo" of the ice and snow would cause greatly increased melting, and rising sea levels.. wrong word.. but dark ash particles will cause a great increase in sun light into heat and melting of ice, etc.

Your points only make, to me, how obvious that it isn't just as "black and white" as CO2 reduction or elimination being the answer.

Way too many factors involved for the focus being solely on CO2..

I also suppose I was trying to point out that far bigger disasters can be put on a minute handful of mankind, rather than the whole species getting condemned for CO2 by secular science and society.

Pravdaseeker

a reply to: Phage

What else was provided for those plants, besides an abundance of CO2? All the water and nutrients they required?

You might as well go with Brawndo.

a reply to: pravdaseeker

Acid rain? Big drops in pH of rain, (no pun intended), have been recorded after increased volcanism, which we are having right now.

No. Sulphates injected into the upper troposphere and stratosphere don't cause rain (acid or otherwise) but they do reflect sunlight back into space, decreasing radiative forcing and providing a cooling effect. But what indications are there that we are experiencing increased volcanism on a global basis?

Also said it was warmer due to well known changes in the Earth's orbit? OK, not sure what that is about, but..many previous spikes.

Cyclical effects of both Earth's orbit and its axis of rotation. Sometimes referred to as Milankovitch Cycles. www.indiana.edu...

Volcanic eruptions, if bad enough could spell doom for the ice caps. By getting covered in ash, the "albedo" of the ice and snow would cause greatly increased melting, and rising sea levels.. wrong word.. but dark ash particles will cause a great increase in sun light into heat and melting of ice, etc.

Yes. An asteroid impact would also be a bummer. But neither of them are under human control.

Way too many factors involved for the focus being solely on CO2..

Except that rising CO2 levels would seem to be the greatest factor in the warming trend we are currently experiencing. Decreasing the rate at which we produce CO2 would decrease the rate of warming. This would provide more time to adapt to changing climates, from developing technologies to deal with it to dealing with the human impacts.

a reply to: Phage

This would provide more time to adapt to changing climates, from developing technologies to deal with it to dealing with the human impacts.

Adaption FTW. Mitigation = 2nd order.