Comments on: Study finds “mass biodiversity collapse” at 900 ppm, and possibly a “threshold response … to relatively minor increases in CO2 concentration and/or global temperature.”

By: Asteroid Miner

Asteroid Miner — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 07:09:16 +0000

You forgot to mention that Homo Sapiens would be among the 80% to go extinct.

By: Asteroid Miner

Asteroid Miner — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 07:00:15 +0000

Peer reviewed literature: How about the MIT “Wavelength Tables”? This is an encyclopedia-length series of books. We have been testing the optical properties of substances since the 19th Century. We know very well that O2 and N2 are transparent to infra-red but CO2 is opaque to infra-red. We have known this since the 19th Century. Doubters: Get your own degree in Physics and get yourself a spectrometer. The experiment is not difficult. It could be taught, or at least demonstrated, in high school. We can test precisely what any concentration of CO2 will do optically.
A practical example: the planet Venus: CO2 is denser by half than water at the surface of Venus, and the rocks glow a dull red. Lead is a liquid there. The climate of Venus is what happens when the CO2 gets really dense. There is no life on Venus.

By: Gail

Gail — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:13:42 +0000

http://www.sciencedaily.com/ releases/ 2009/ 06/ 090629081127.htm

So much for the “plant food” theory. Messing with atmospheric concentrations has to affect plants for the simple reason they are suited to our past atmosphere.

By: Wonhyo

Wonhyo — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 07:07:13 +0000

As time passes, I notice there are more and more studies confirming the dire consequences of not taking dramatic action now to reduce human GHG emissions. This is what causes my ambivalence toward compromise climate bills and CFL light bulbs. I see many people promoting the use of CFL light bulbs, but they’re driving SUVs, not carpooling, not taking public transportation, buying a huge home, etc. We tend to take comfort in miniscule actions like CFL lights so that we can avoid the more difficult sacrifices that must be made. In this sense, CFL lights actually hurt our cause. We would be far better off if we DIDN’T upgrade to CFL lights, but instead, carpooled, drove fewer miles, and used public transportation more. So, I wonder about the climate bill. If this compromise climate bill passes, are we ready to campaign to strengthen it? Or are we going to breathe a sigh of relief and start borrowing against future carbon credits in a state of self-satisfaction?

By: Richard Pauli

Richard Pauli — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 07:03:08 +0000

Agnotology: Culturally constructed ignorance, purposefully created by special interest groups working hard to create confusion and suppress the truth.

By: Chris Winter

Chris Winter — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:22:39 +0000

GeneB_NoAGW wrote: “If anything, let’s keep studying all these factors. But let’s NOT destroy our economy on the very slight chance that a *slight* reduction in man’s CO2 contribution will cause even a dent in the Earth’s temperature.”

We will keep studying all these factors. But I have to wonder, if studies are so important to you, why you are unaware of studies of the sun’s output over the past 30 years — studies which show it declining slightly during that period.

Meanwhile, over that time, temperature kept trending upwards and CO2 concentrations kept increasing. Studies documenting CO2 as the likely cause of the warming would now fill a library. But some people are somehow still able to believe all that work is “flawed” or “meaningless” and call for more studies before any action is taken.

History tells us that’s the classic way the powers that be block needed action they don’t happen to favor.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:08:25 +0000

I hate to do it but Gene, please point to some credible peer reviewed literature to support your findings. I’d love to read it first of all and secondly, I haven’t been able to find it myself. The so called fear mongering is based upon sound science, which is more than I can say for the opposing view point.

Joe RE: “There aren’t many studies of what happens to the oceans as we get toward 800 to 1000 ppm.”

There’s actually quite a bit of work done at extremely low pH levels on invertebrates. Equating to CO2 concentrations sometimes close to 2000ppm. This theme section in Marine Ecology Progress Series at the end of last year is a pretty good synopsis of the different fields of research under ocean acidification http://www.int-res.com/ articles/ theme/ m373_ThemeSection.pdf

By: Jim Eager

Jim Eager — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:41:22 +0000

Gene, the conclusion that the lag in the ice core record proves that temperature does not respond to CO2 is nothing more than false logic.

What the lag proves is that an increase in CO2 does not precede and initiate the warming that ends a glaciation, but then that is already a well known and widely accepted fact, something that global warming/climate change deniers are apparently not aware of.

What the *magnitude* of the warming in the ice core proves is that it was far greater than changes in insolation alone could produce. Even when amplified by changes in albedo as the ice melts there would not be nearly enough warming to end a glacial stade.

Only by also adding amplification from rising atmospheric CO2, methane and water vapour would the change in insolation produce the observed 5-6C warming.

In other words, what the lag in the ice core proves is that temperature *does* in fact respond to CO2.

Your assertion that the current warming preceded the observed rise in CO2 is just plain silly.

And no, its not the sun that is causing current climate change, no matter how many times you write that it is. You can look it up if you like.

Nor are volcanoes, above ground or below the oceans, which on average emit less than 1% as much CO2 as burning fossil fuels do each year, and not nearly enough actual heat to warm . You can look that up, too, if you like.

Go ahead, surprise us.

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:34:34 +0000

GeneB_NoAGW — I fear you have it all bass-ackwards.. For reliable information, read “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

By: paulm

paulm — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:56:46 +0000

Gene,

There is a huge, overwhelming amount of evidence that human CO2 emissions plays the critical role in the Climate warming we are now seeing.

Who wants to destroying the economy. That happened last year anyway. There is no reason not to resuscitate it in a sustaible mannar that tackles all the problems we now face.

I am sure the studying of these factors will continue:) I don’t understand how it is you can’t accept that additional CO2 produced by man cannot affect the climate.

Just because it is in relatively a small proportion does not rule out the fact that it may have a big impact on the system. Haven’t you heard of the butterfly effect?

Consider this …

The followers of the peace lobbies of the 1930s resembled the environmentalist movements now; their intentions were more than good but wholly inappropriate for the war that was about to start. It is time to wake up and realize that Gaia, the Earth system, is no cozy mother that nurtures humans and can be propitiated by gestures such as carbon trading or sustainable development.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ environment/ 2009/ jun/ 29/ climate-war-lovelock