Comments about ‘Take close look at CO2, scientist urges’

know about methane gas, this makes them an expert about all gasses the Utah legislature will not be fooled by science and logic.

Anyone remember Y2K? Anyone remember before global warming the climate experts were telling us we are headed for another ice age? Anyone remember a few weeks ago in the news e-mails were brought to light from several scientists whose research has been telling us that global warming is upon is .... stating that their research was fabricated, and that if they are forced to produce the evidence, they will state they lost it?

Fool me once, I say shame on you, but if you fool me twice, shame on me.

What a bunch of hogwash...As Czech President Vaclav Klaus suggests, these enviro scare tactics that attempt to control our lives and put power in the hands of corrupt beaurocrats needs to be stopped at all costs...They are simply communists with a green alarm.

Then the astute scientist should know that the more CO2, the faster plant life grows, including trees thereby absorbing more CO2. Higher CO2 increases crop production and enables plants to require less water. CO2 is not stated as the cause of global warming, but a forcing agent, in the end which forces more humidity, which is the most powerful greenhouse gas. The whole hypothesis has been disproven over and in a myriad of ways, but the media won't report any skeptic views, giving people the impression that a consensus exists. Over 500 peer reviewed papers have been written skeptical of global warming caused by man. The truth is out there if you want to know.

The AGW hoax is unraveling along with the IPCC which is daily being exposed as full of errors, outright lies and misleading statements.

Carbon dioxide represents .03% of the atmosphere.
The rest about 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen. By definition oxygen is a greenhouse gas as well.

Last time I tested it, air was not a very good insulator. Heat seems to pass fairly easily through air.

No one has yet explained clearly how a gas that composes 1/30000 of the atmosphere is responsible for trapping heat. They also seem to ignore mentioning the correlation between that solar flares which are millions of degrees and shoot millions of miles above the sun's surface and the earth's varying weather and temperature.

I wonder what "price" Volk thinks should be paid for emitting CO2? It seems drastic to penalize every CO2-emitting animal on earth and starve every CO2-consuming plant. Hopefully Volk will educate us about the benefits of CO2. More of it improves crop yields. The Jurassic period had CO2 levels four times higher than today and plants and animals thrived. Presumably Volk will point out that as we've improved the efficiency of our use of fossil fuels, CO2 output per unit of energy has decreased and will continue to do so. Also I'm sure he'll illustrate the fact that modern societies generally replant their forests and actually increase forestation which consumes some of that excess CO2. And of course he'll clarify the fact that warming of the atmosphere due to CO2 is hysterically overblown because it's a logarithmic function; meaning, for instance, it would require CO2 levels to double in order to (maybe) increase the temperature by a couple degrees Fahrenheit. Finally, I'll bet he'll advocate a policy of cautious public awareness rather than drastic and counterproductive government mandates. Then again, maybe he won't.

Not all scientists are on the "same page" when it come to claiming that the current warming trend is directly tied to anthropogenic generated emissions. For example, another scientific paper takes a different position than Mr. Volk is espousing. It is titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" as recorded in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (2007), vol12, p79-90. In the paper's conclusion, it states the following (summarized):

"There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape… The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects."

The Utah Legislators' may have this one 'right.'

The London Times (Feb 8th) recently published the following report:

"The UN's 2007 Report on Global Warming is under fire again… Chris Field, new lead author of IPCC's climate impact team, says he can find "no evidence" to support a claim in the report that rain-fed North African crop yields could be reduced by as much as 50% by 2020 because of Global warming…

"[This] revelation follows IPCC's retraction of a claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, and other inaccurate claims about Amazon deforestation."

With these kinds of "revelations" by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), I would think that one should take pause about how much other data may be flawed before continuing to advocate that global warming is directly attributable to emissions generated by mankind.

Common Sense:
Ozone, which is far rarer in the atmosphere than CO2 (0.00006% of the atmosphere) filters out most of the UV radiation that would fry you to a crisp.

Solar Radiation has been measured by satellite for many years and is not increasing. In addition, the earth, even though it does have orbital oscillations, is currently in a nearly concentric orbit. Global warming is not coming from the sun.

Energy comes from the sun to earth in wavelengths from 270nm to 400nm (nanometers). Ozone filters out most of the wavelengths up to 320nm. When the remaining energy (which is now mostly visible light) hits the earth it is absorbed. The earth then heats up and starts to radiate long-wavelength infrared energy back into space. It just so happens that CO2 absorbs long-wavelength radiation and prevents some of it from escaping back into space. Therefore, the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more heat is prevented from escaping back into space and the earth warms up.

Even though there is more water than CO2 in the atmosphere, water rains out every 7-10 days. CO2 stays up there for 100 years.

Sorry, in my last post I meant to say that "Energy comes from the sun to earth in wavelengths from 270nm to 700nm" (400nm is the end of the UV portion)

"Common Sense" says, "No one has yet explained clearly how a gas that composes 1/30000 of the atmosphere is responsible for trapping heat."

Do you really believe this? Do you really believe that no scientist, anywhere, has any idea of how this works and has never explained it clearly? Or are you simply assuming that if you don't understand their explanation, it doesn't matter?

If you're actually interested in learning something about the climate of the planet you live on, you could start by looking up the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

The earth is trying to kill itself. Don't you all see it? The earth traps dead plants and animals underneath the seas where they are compressed and decompose into methane gas. The earth is trying to suck up all the CO2 and have it transformed into CH4, which later it releases into the atmosphere. CH4 is useless to plants that the earth is starving of CO2, and deadly to animals. Don't you see the earth is trying to kill all of us, plants included? We're parasites to the earth and it wants us GONE! If we want life to survive, which the earth obviously hates (it kills us all through gravity or some other evil way) then we need to release all these fossil fuels as fast as we can.

It's us against the earth. Who do you want to win? Why are liberals voting for the earth? Are you all suicide bombers now? It's the estrogen like compounds in the water. They're making you all crazy. Wake up and save life. Burn fossil fuels now!

Oh man, LOL, good lord most of these comments are hilarious. Some are the usual anti-science talking points; Solar Flares! CO2 is good for plants! CO2 is a small % of the atmosphere! Conspiracies! Ice Age in the 70's! Emails! IPCC is a Big Error! But I have to say Liberdoll takes the cake, I'm not sure if it's sarcastic or not, but I've never heard that one before, LOL.

Thank goodness for the rational comments from dlharman and Phila. I'm surprised (kind of) that the anti-science comments were generated from this article. Professor Volk is obviously taking a rational and science based approach to teaching information about the carbon cycle and how it relates to our climate. He's not being alarmist and he's not saying we shouldn't be worried, just that we should be well informed about a very critical component of this issue when making policy decisions.

Finally a sane post comes on. Yeah, the evil scientists want to kill us all along with their kids. If I didn't know better I would think I was living in the 1800's. I've got a clue, read a few of the sudies and think for yourself. Nah that would be too hard, we'll just let Rush and Beck think for us and that's what scares me the most.

Phil Jones, the professor behind the "Climate-gate" affair, has admitted some of his decades-old weather data was not well enough organized.

So, if the leading scientist behind the Global Warming hypothesis is unsure of his data... why should we (you) be so sure about it.

Scientists are stumbling around in the dark when it comes to the global systems that drive weather. The earth will be here 100 Million years from now... but, if we don't remain realistic... I doubt we'll be here 100 years from now.

NO CONSENSUS - LET THE DEBATE BEGIN! (Before we spend trillions on empty air.