There's no logical reason
to fear adding CO2
to the atmosphere,
based on real science,
which means data
and measurements.
Real science tells us
our planet benefits
from adding CO2 to the air,
when the fossil fuels
emitting CO2 are burned
with modern pollution controls.
Thousands of real science
experiments prove that extra CO2
accelerates plant growth,
and allows them to grow faster
with less water !
Good summary of the science here:
https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/CCR/CCR-IIb/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf
Good summary of the science here:
https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/CCR/CCR-IIb/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf
Based on real science, I favor
a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere --
duplicating what greenhouse owners
do with their CO2 enrichment systems !
I understand that some Dumbocrats
are telling the public that adding CO2
to the atmosphere is an "existential
threat".
Here's what Canada was like
20,000 years ago:
Here's what Canada was like
20,000 years ago:
In reality, climate change
has been beneficial for the
past 20,000 years, and there
is no logical reason to consider it
even a minor threat.
past 20,000 years, and there
is no logical reason to consider it
even a minor threat.
Dumbocrats, who know nothing about
climate science, are also blind to effects
of global warming in the past 20,000 years --
they were 20,000 years of good climate news
for our planet.
Some time in the future,
our current mild climate
our current mild climate
Holocene interglacial will end,
and the planet will gradually get
and the planet will gradually get
a lot colder for the next 90,000 years.
That could be a serious
climate change problem.
climate change problem.
The Dumbocrats,
of course, have no idea
of course, have no idea
what an interglacial is !
The mainstream media are busy
publishing scary fairy tales of a
coming climate change catastrophe,
which some scientists first began
predicting in the 1960's.
After 55 years of scary predictions,
no one with sense would still believe
the scary predictions !
The climate can not be predicted,
and past global warming was mild
and beneficial.
Most of the warming
from 1975 to 2003
from 1975 to 2003
was in the northern half
of the Northern Hemisphere,
at night, and during the
coldest six months of the year.
of the Northern Hemisphere,
at night, and during the
coldest six months of the year.
People living in Alaska
consider that to be good news !
consider that to be good news !
And so do I.
Since 1950, the average temperature
has increased intermittently,
at an average rate of only
+0.1 degree C. per decade.
at an average rate of only
+0.1 degree C. per decade.
So, it might be +0.1 degree C. warmer
in ten years, assuming the lack of warming
since 2003 is just a temporary pause.
The averge temperature
has barely changed since 2003:
The averge temperature
has barely changed since 2003:
"Alexandria Occasionally Coherent"
claims climate change is
an "existential threat".
an "existential threat".
Because she's a brainwashed
climate junk science believer !
climate junk science believer !
Also a Marxist, using climate change
scaremongering to promote the
massive growth of government power !
DETAILS:
During the current unusually
mild climate for our planet,
called the "Holocene interglacial,
there have been many
mild cycles (warming, then cooling),
that lasted for hundreds of years,
per Antarctica ice core studies:
per Antarctica ice core studies:
Earth’s Recent Climate History:
600 to 200 BC = Cool period
200 BC to 600 AD = “Roman Warming"
600 to 900 = Cool period (aka :"The Dark Ages" )
900 to 1300 = “Medieval Warming”
1300 to 1850 = “Little Ice Age”
1850 to tbd = “Modern Warming”
Climate models have made
very wrong climate predictions
for the past three decades:
Continuing to use the same models,
making the same wrong predictions,
year after year, based on a 1970's theory
about CO2, is NOT real science:
(1)
Consistently wrong climate predictions,
predicting triple the global warming
that later happens, are junk science
-- real science requires correct predictions !
(2)
(2)
The future climate can't be predicted
until we gain more knowledge about
what actually causes climate change.
The claim that CO2 levels are the
'climate controller', are contradicted
by data:
Three different CO2
- average temperature
- average temperature
correlations since 1940:
(1) CO2 up,
Average temperature down,
from 1940 to 1975,
(2) CO2 up,
Average temperature up,
from 1975 to 2003, and
(3) CO2 up,
Average temperature flat,
after 2003
Manmade CO2 in the atmosphere
is claimed to increase in every decade,
but there has been no correlation with
average temperature, which had both
increases, and declines:
1860 to 1875 = avg. temperature up for 15 years
1875 to 1890 = down for 15 years
1890 to 1903 = up for 13 years
1903 to 1918 = down for 15 years
1918 to 1941 = up for 23 years
1941 to 1975 = down for 34 years
1975 to 2003 = up for 28 years
2003 to 2019 = unchanged for 15 years, so far
1860 to 1875 = avg. temperature up for 15 years
1875 to 1890 = down for 15 years
1890 to 1903 = up for 13 years
1903 to 1918 = down for 15 years
1918 to 1941 = up for 23 years
1941 to 1975 = down for 34 years
1975 to 2003 = up for 28 years
2003 to 2019 = unchanged for 15 years, so far
Note: 1860 to 1978 were measured
using non-global surface thermometers
– 1979 and after were measured using global,
– 1979 and after were measured using global,
and much more accurate, weather satellites
In the 1960’s climate scientist Roger Revelle
( Al Gore’s hero )
discovered that government grants
would flow his way if he predicted
a coming climate change disaster,
and never expressed any doubt about it.
That strategy caught on with many
other scientists, and is extremely popular
today.
Roger Revelle was the grandfather of
the climate change cult -- his work led
to the UN Intergovernmental Panel
of Climate Change ( IPCC ),
established by the UN's Maurice Strong,
who wanted a UN one-world government.
His dream began with a drive to have
the UN become the world climate czar.
Government jobs and grants
concerning climate change
go only to "scientists" who predict
a coming climate catastrophe
-- meaning that scary predictions
are mandatory for employment !
The "global warmunists"
hate economic growth
and prosperity.
That's why they hate the foundation of
economic growth:
Inexpensive sources of energy, such as
oil, coal, and nuclear power.
"Alternative" energy sources, such as
solar and wind, are intermittent,
low density, energy sources
-- they are very expensive, even with
massive taxpayer subsidies.
An electric grid with a majority
of "renewables", can not operate
without a lot of fossil fuel back-up
generators to meet temporary
spikes in demand.
The worst case would be on
windless nights, which would have
no solar or wind electric power
available ...
requiring the power company
to use 100% backup natural gas
and coal power plants !
The global warming
since the mid-1800s
since the mid-1800s
has been beneficial,
for both humans
for both humans
and green plants.
It makes sense
to want more CO2
in the air, not less:
to want more CO2
in the air, not less:
(1)
The optimum CO2 level
for green plant growth
is in the 1,000ppm
to 2,000 ppm range,
( ppm = parts per million )
the range reached
inside greenhouses
that use CO2 enrichment
systems ( to accelerate
plant growth ).
The current outdoor level
of CO2 is 410 ppm.
(2)
CO2 enrichment
is also used in
salt water fish tanks
to accelerate plant
and coral growth.
There's lots of scientific proof
more CO2 in the air accelerates
plant growth, and reduces plant
water requirements.
Especially the "C3" plants
Especially the "C3" plants
used for food, by humans
and animals.
Accelerating "C3" plant growth,
and 'greening' the planet,
is great news for malnourished,
and starving humans
( of course the 'greens'
could not care less
about those serious
problems in poor nations ).
