Carbon Dioxide Revisited
According to a thorough analysis by the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, a research wing of the US Department of Energy, it is only 3.207 percent. All of the hoopla over an atmospheric component so minute, is difficult to comprehend, reports Brain Sussman. (1)
Another analysis: In every 85,800 molecules of air only one is a molecule of CO2 produced by humans. That this can warm Earth is nonsense. That the IPCC and the federal government want us to believe that in every 85,800 molecules of air, a single CO2 molecule produced by humans warms the planet yet the other 32 produced by Nature does not is insane. (2)
Only once in the geological past, the Permian period, 300 million years ago, have atmospheric CO2 levels been as low as they are today. Plant and animal life flourished abundantly during times when CO2 levels were five or ten times higher than today’s.
Concentrations up to 1,000 ppm (2.5 times that in open air today) are common in classrooms or auditoriums. Humans start to feel drowsy above that level, so when students start to nod off in my classroom, I like to believe it’s that 1,000 ppm, not the quality of my lecture, reports Steven Koonin. (3)
The following summarizes levels of CO2 under various conditions:
– 40,000 ppm: the exhaled breath of normal, healthy people
– 5,000 ppm: CO2 standard for submarines
– 2,500 ppm: CO2 level in a small, hot crowded bar in a city
– 1,000 ppm: average level in a lecture hall filled with students
-~400 ppm: current average level of CO2 in the air
A legion of recent experiments have demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt that a CO2 enriched atmosphere promotes plant growth, increases agricultural production and promotes a greener planet.
CO2 enrichment also ameliorates drought by enabling plants to survive with less water and in harsher conditions. The evidence is also written large in the geological record how a green and lusher earth once flourished when the atmosphere was enriched with ten to twenty times more CO2 than it enjoys today, and without causing any harm to earth’s biodiversity. (4)
So, although we have been enmeshed in a long debate over global warming and climate change and carbon dioxide you wouldn’t know this from most networks. But this isn’t new. Sadly, the networks’ bias on climate change has been happening for decades.
Many publications now claiming the world is on the brink of a global warming disaster said the same thing about an impending ice age in the 1970s. Several major ones, including the New York Times, Time Magazine, and Newsweek, have reported on three or even four different climate shifts since 1985. (5)
References
1. Brian Sussman, “Climategate”, (Washington, DC, WND Books, 2010)
2. “One in 85,800 is a log shot indeed,” carbon-sense.com, January 9, 2010
3. Steven E. Koonin, Unsettled, (Dallas, TX, BenBella Books, Inc, 2021), 67
4. Robert D. Brinsmead, “An irrational fear of carbon,” carbon-sense.com, August 2008
5. Julia A. Seymour, “Networks do 92 climate change stories; fail to mention ‘lull’ in warming in all 92 times,” mrc.org/bias, June 25, 2013
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Howdy
| #
Trees, or the industry buzzword, biomass, are being burnt like there’s no tomorrow. Not to try to ramp up CO2 levels of course, and as I’ve heard, forests, pardon me, biomass, is renewable, (even If you have to wait many decades) right?
Then there’s the effect of volcanoes. We don’t hear enough about volcanoes.
Reply
Alan
| #
I would like to see a bit of simple physics included with this article. For example, what temperature would the carbon dioxide have to be for the entire atmosphere to reach a new equilibrium temperature 1C higher. Then repeat the calculation assuming the Earth is water (for simplicity) and work out what temperature the atmosphere would have to be for it to increase the sea temperature by 1C. Perhaps they would then realise there is never going to be a climate crisis caused by CO2.
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
There has been research on the temperature at which CO2 interacts with solar radiation. Results overwhelmingly place its temperature ~193K on the solar radiation scale. The latest confirmation of this number was on this website: Witteman, W.J., “The absorption of thermal emitted radiation by CO2,” April 3, 2020, https://principia-scientific.org/the-absorption-of-thermal-emitted-infrared-radiation-by-co2/
A quick check confrms that ~193K is -80°C. That is minus eighty Celsius degrees. Witteman’s researcj estimated 99.83% of carbon dioxide radiating at that level.
Freeman Dyson always said CO2 was a cooling gas. Do you suppose he was right?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Alan,
They don’t understand temperature vs energy so they will never be able to provide you with an answer. Water is 1000 times denser than the atmosphere above it. If you raise the kinetic energy (temperature) of the gas molecules in the atmosphere the density decreases and you have fewer molecules transferring energy to the same number of water molecules.
Dealing with the convection transfer of energy is different than dealing with radiated energy. In radiation the flow of energy is from the object with more energy (v^2) to the object with less energy. With convection, where there are elastic collisions between molecules, the mass or number of molecules transferring energy (1/2mv^2) must also be considered. The conservation of momentum (M1V1 + M2V2 = M1V3 = M2V4) dictates that the object with the greater velocity will transfer energy to the object with less energy, regardless of the masses involved..So, when it comes to temperature (kinetic energy) it is possible for a cooler (less kinetic energy) object to add energy (heat) a hotter (more kinetic energy) object.
Herb
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Just to be clear what Herb is proposing.
Herb has a slow spinning wheel [ cool molecule ] and a fast spinning wheel [ warm molecule ] and when he bumps them both together the slow spinning wheel speeds up the fast spinning wheel and the more times he bumps them together the faster the fast spinning wheel spin’s and the slower the slow spinning wheel spins.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Gary,
Not quite, with energy equilibrium is achieved with the one collision. The fast small wheel will slow down when the large wheel speeds up so, on subsequent collisions their circumferences will be traveling at the same rates (length/time not rpm) Think of a car with different sized wheels on the front and back. The smaller wheels have greater rpm but are traveling the same distance as the larger wheels. The two molecules will have the same kinetic energy but the smaller molecules will have a greater velocity.
Herb.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
In your next comment you stated: “Let me try to clarify further.” No need to go further; your, simple clear example of this comment, should be sufficient!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Gary,
Let me try to clarify further. In a collision between two objects the sum of the momentum of the objects after the collision will be the same as their sum of momentum before the collision. Since the masses of the objects doesn’t change because of the collision, the object with greater velocity will transfer velocity to the object with less velocity. The faster object will lose both speed and momentum while the slower object gains speed and momentum. It doesn’t matter what the difference in the mass of the objects is, so it is quite possible for an object with a large mass, giving it more kinetic energy, to gain velocity and kinetic energy from an object with lower mass and less kinetic energy.
I hope this helps.
Herb
Reply