We need MORE CO2 says Solar Scientist at "Greener Skies '08 conference ...
By ladyluna
@ladyluna (7004)
United States
April 6, 2008 8:33am CST
Hello All,
Now we are seeing Science warning of our need to increase CO2 production to offset a theorized slow down of Sun Spot activity, and subsequent solar warming.
In this discussion, I will reference two sources. The first is the source of the article quoted in the first half of this discussion. The second is from Dr. Archibald's presentation to the Australian Conference last June.
Here is the link to the article:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60626
And, here are some passages from the article:
"You could have heard a pin drop at the Hong Kong conference designed to persuade the airline industry to cut back on its production of so-called greenhouse gases to fight "global warming." When guest speaker David Archibald, a solar scientist, "told those gathered they should figure out ways of increasing CO2 output."
Archibald went on to say:
"There will be significant cooling very soon. Our generation has known a warm, giving sun, but the new generation will suffer a sun that is less giving, and the earth will be less fruitful. Carbon dioxide is not even a little bit bad – it's wholly beneficial."
"Plant growth responds to atmospheric carbon dioxide enrichment," he continued. "In a world of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide, crops will use less water per unit of carbon dioxide uptake. Thus the productivity of semi-arid lands will increase the most."
"We will need this increase in agricultural productivity to offset the colder weather coming," he said. "It also follows that if the developed countries of the world want to be caring and sharing to the countries of the Third World, the best thing that could be done for them is to increase atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. It is the equivalent of giving them free phosphate fertilizer. Who would want to deny the Third World such a wonderful benefit?"
When "Martin Craigs, president of Aerospace Forum Asia" mockingly questioned the validity of Archibald's theory, "
Archibald replied: "I am happy to share the science. It's all reputable."
Here is a link to Archibald's detailed presentation to the Lavoisier Group's 2007 Workshop in Melbourne, Australia on 6/29/2007.
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf2007/Archibald2007.pdf
Here are a few passages from Archibald's presentation:
"That temperature rise in the early 18th century was four times as large and three times as fast as the rise in the 20th century. The significance of this is that the world can experience very rapid temperature swings all due to natural causes."
"To reconstruct climate prior to thermometer records, isotope ratios and tree ring widths are used. This graph shows the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. The peak of the Medieval Warm Period was 2° warmer than today and the Little Ice Age 2° colder at its worst. The total range is 4° centigrade.
"The warming over the 20th century was 0.6 degrees by comparison. This recent warming has melted ice on some high passes in the Swiss Alps, uncovering artifacts from the
Medieval Warm Period and the prior Roman Warm Period."
The last quote relates to "Figure 10: Sunspot Cycles 1700 - 2030" on Page 7.
"The energy that stops the Earth from looking like Pluto comes from the Sun, and the level of this energy does change. This graph is of sunspot cycles since 1700. The average length of a sunspot cycle is 10.7 years. The Dalton Minimum is a period of lower temperatures from 1796 to 1820 caused by the low amplitude of solar cycles 4 and 5."
[b]My questions to you are:
1. Should we now jump on the "Global Cooling" bandwagon, and begin efforting ourselves to increase CO2 production?
2. Much of this same "Global Cooling" data was prominent from the 1970s to the early 1990s. So, how did the concept of Global Warming subvert the prominence of the cooling models, and for such a short period of time?
3. Which do you believe is more likely: Global Warming or Global Cooling? And, should we attempt to intervene in the cycle of natural temperature variance? Or, just roll with the punches?[/b]
[b]4. Do you have any other thoughts or comments to share on Dr. Archibald's theory?
Thanks, I'm looking forward to learning your perspectives![/b]
3 people like this
8 responses
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
6 Apr 08
1...No because the man made CO2 has an insignificant effect on Global Warming/Cooling and Climate change. It is mostly the Sun and water vapor.
Just as man made CO2 has no real effect on Global Warming it would also have little effect on Global Cooling.
While Archibald may have a point with increased plant growth if they had more CO2, I think that has to also be balanced by sunlight, warmth, and whatever nutrients that can be taken from the soil.
Just as singling out CO2 as a cause of global warming is foolish... so is singling out CO2 to improve plant growth is equally foolish.... it is but one of many components and variables.
2. I think Global Warming subverted Global Cooling because we could feel the warmth at a time the scientists were saying that it was supposed to be getting colder.
Add in a few activists that see an opportunity to create panic and spur funding for Climate Research and it all boils down to the same thing.
The scientists have their funding and research grants, and they don't care if it warming or cooling that they are researching, as long as they are.
Add someone like Al Gore who writes a few books, adds a little scientific nonsense that won't really hold up under scrutiny, and then makes a slide show presentation showing swimming polar bears and other cute furry critters that he claims are drowning and dying, that are being displaced because their habitat is melting, and a new religion is born.
The polar bears are to greenhouse gasses what Bambi was to hunting, and people fell for it.
The media jumped on board and the media blitz began.
Global Warming is more about perception then it is science. IPCC had a consensus based on the perception. The world at large has bought into the perception that man is responsible for what happens in our climate.
Science shows otherwise, but science is being muzzled in order to hide the truth and maintain the perception.
There is big money to be made, large taxes and fees to be charged as long as people have the perception that man is responsible for Global Waring.
If man is not responsible... as the science is now showing... then all of that just goes away.
3...We roll with the punches... we adapt to our environment just as man has always done from the beginning of time.
I believe we are in an overall warming trend. Some years will be cooler and some will be warmer just like always.
I believe the earth will warm until it peaks and then begins to cool until it bottoms and then begins to warm again.
I believe it is natural and cyclical... and that there is nothing that we can do to prevent any of it.
4.... I think his theory surprised a lot of people, and it pretty much demolishes popular perception.
I find this amusing...
"After Archibald's speech, Martin Craigs, president of Aerospace Forum Asia, went to the microphone and asked: "Don't you have Al Gore's e-mail address?" "How can you be right and 2,000 scientists wrong?"
I personally don't consider Al Gore to be a scientist.... and his "Inconvenient Truth" has been thoroughly debunked and judged a "work of fiction" on 9 counts in a British Court.
As I recall, they don't Have 2000 scientists, and more scientists is coming out against the IPCC consensus all the time.
Al Gore refuses to debate his assertions, because he knows that a real scientist would rip him to shreds.
3 people like this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
6 Apr 08
"How can you be right and 2,000 scientists wrong?"
I sometimes get this crap hurled at me. You can try to explain to them that the even the thing about 2000 scientists supporting the IPCC report is a lie in itself, but they won't believe you.
It is kind of funny how often things that 'everybody knows' are wrong.
Great response, Destiny, but I can't give the BR on this one!
2 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
7 Apr 08
Hello Destiny,
I suspect that this return to the discussion of the cooling models will bring to light the insignificant effect that CO2 is playing. Though, I am still grappling with the intended and unintended consequences of forging forward with the production of fuel cell automobile technology. If a long-term cooling trend is really on the way, then adding more water vapor to the atmosphere, albeit temporarily, might be just what the doctor ordered. Any thoughts on this?
As for Dr. Archibald's CO2 as fertilizer theory: Well, he is clearly correct about increased CO2 being an aid to plant growth. However, what about the theory that only certain plant/tree species are capable of thriving in heavy pollution areas? I have seen this theory for years. Particularly relating to municipal landscaping choices for tree specimens in road-median areas. If there is any validity to the theory that only certain species are appropriate in heavy traffic pollution areas, then doesn't Dr. Archibald's theory of increasing CO2 production have to be more specific in the type(s) of CO2 produced? I would think so, though I'm open to other perspectives on this. Any thoughts?
I believe that you are 'spot on' regarding the hunt for research funding being a huge part of the reason why the warming theory replaced the cooling theory. Though, hopefully, the return of discussion about the cooling models will terminate the alarmism that has accompanied the wide-spread propagation of this untested theory.
I'd actually really enjoy seeing/hearing Al Gore debate his warming theory with bonafide representatives of the Scientific community. I rather think that'd be a hoot!
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
7 Apr 08
Luna... "Though, I am still grappling with the intended and unintended consequences of forging forward with the production of fuel cell automobile technology. If a long-term cooling trend is really on the way, then adding more water vapor to the atmosphere, albeit temporarily, might be just what the doctor ordered. Any thoughts on this?"
As to the issue of fuel cells...
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell7.htm
This technology seems to be something that will take quite a while before it is widely available and affordable to the masses and replaces current gasoline and diesel fueled vehicles.
I am not quite understanding why hydrogen was chosen as it is expensive to manufacture and deliver.
As to water vapor.... for enough water vapor to be produced to effect a noticeable and meaningful change then there is a down side as well.
The level of water vapor in the air is commonly referred to as humidity. Just as high humidity results in a higher heat index and eventually precipitation in the summer, would not the same be true in the winter?
Would the winters then feel colder and heavier snowfall and increased winter storm activity be a result?
I would think that increased water vapor would not make us warmer in a cooler climate, I think it would make us feel colder.
"As for Dr. Archibald's CO2 as fertilizer theory: Well, he is clearly correct about increased CO2 being an aid to plant growth. However, what about the theory that only certain plant/tree species are capable of thriving in heavy pollution areas?"
I think this theory is correct... some plants are bound to be more resistant to certain types of pollution than others.
"I have seen this theory for years. Particularly relating to municipal landscaping choices for tree specimens in road-median areas. If there is any validity to the theory that only certain species are appropriate in heavy traffic pollution areas, then doesn't Dr. Archibald's theory of increasing CO2 production have to be more specific in the type(s) of CO2 produced? I would think so, though I'm open to other perspectives on this. Any thoughts?"
Not necessarily, because CO2 is still CO2 no matter what the source is, whether it is man made or natural. The chemical makeup is still the same.
With all of the hullabaloo over CO2, I just realized that we have many uses for it, from putting the fizz in carbonated drinks to fire extinguishers. I wonder what plans are in the works concerning these uses since CO2 is now considered a deadly pollutant?
2 people like this
@Eskimo (2315)
•
6 Apr 08
I'm sorry, but the entire human CO2 production is only causes 0.117% of global warming, how much more do you think we need to produce to actually have any effect at all?
So much of Climate Change is completely natural that changes in CO2 (which is really only a greenhouse gas when it is in a greenhouse anyway) will have little or no effect.
It is nice to see another person who thinks for him/her self, instead of following party lines and spouting about massively cutting CO2 to save the planet, when it is actually only about putting taxes up, and making people happy to pay the extra tax.
I do think though that we should try and reduce pollution where possible.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
7 Apr 08
Hello Eskimo,
I'm in full agreement! I'm glad to see Dr. Archibald, and others presenting hard science to counter the whole warming alarmist phenomenon.
I suspect that that is the reason why Dr. Archibald is presenting this 'increase CO2' theory. I believe that his reference to: if the developed nations of the world wish to genuinely help the lesser developed nations, then we should increase CO2 ... is part of an intended 'shock treatment' plan to wake up those who support the warming theory. That's my take on his lecture, anyway.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. Hopefully discussions like this one will begin to permeate the mindset of those who have signed on to warming alarmism!
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
6 Apr 08
1) The sunspot cycle could kick in tomorrow, so, I would not go overboard predicting doom from global cooling. We should make sensible preparations just in case, that's it.
2) Global warming had more money in it and was able to overwhelm the global cooling warning signs. I think the internet and thefaster exchange of information today led to a quicker expose of the global warming scam than otherwise would have happened.
3) On the long term global warming is coming. We are only 10,000 years off the bottom of a cycle that is 100,000 years long. That is, 10,000 years ago there was a major ice age. 100,000 years after that, expect another one. As we are only 10,000 years into a cycle that peaks after 50,000 years, before returning to an ice age after 100,000 years total, we are on the uphill climb of the temperature chart.
On the short term, we very well could have another mini ice age. No one really knows, but there is a good likelyhood of it. If there aren't new sunspots, then yes, it will on the short term get colder.
2 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
7 Apr 08
Hello Red,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts here, Red!
What I found interesting about the sun spot activity chart in Dr. Archibald's research is that the pattern of solar activity seems to have been on the decline for some time. So, it would seem that the cycle is already well underway. Which supports your suggestion to not go overboard in predicting gloom. We've survived a number of mini Ice Ages before. So, short of the completion of the projected cycle back to a full ice-age, it would seem that your suggestion of sensible preparations is very wise, indeed. The key word being 'sensible'!
Good point about the injection of money into Global Warming Alarmism. It fit well into the 'for profit' agendas of folks who had the resources to stimulate that agenda!
Geesh, when we consider that the 100,000 year cycle is one of the few climatological theories that Science seems to share a true consensus on -- it seems rather silly to be accepting doom & gloom predictions for either model. I think that people sometimes forget how young the Human Species really is! As well, it seems utterly ridiculous for some to espouse that our puny presence has any effect on the stability of this planet's greater cyclical reality.
Perhaps this return to discussion of the cooling models will once and for all stunt the political agenda of the warming alarmists? I can only hope!
@gewcew23 (8007)
• United States
6 Apr 08
To answer question one no we should not jump on the global cooling bandwagon. We should not jump on the global warming bandwagon. There are something humans have no control over. Humans are not Gods, and we need to quit thinking that we are.
Question 2 Global warming is more popular for big government politician, and scientist that recieve government grant. Politician are licking their chop when talking about government regulation that they can create. Is there really anything you can regulate to "Stop" global cooling.
Question 3 The global temperature cycle says that we will probably see global cooling. Earth has been warming some, has seemed to have stopped, and will start cooling. No big deal, it will not be the second coming of the Ice age, and we will not need to intervene. Let us just roll with the punches.
Question 4 My problem with Dr. Archibald theory is that CO2 creates global warming. In his own speach he said that Solar spots create global warming. CO2 has nothing to do with the temperature. Everything put out CO2, I am putting out CO2, you are putting it out, even Al Gore with all of his hot air is putting out CO2. The Sun warms the Earth, and if the Sun burns hotter, the Earth will get hotter. If the Sun cools off, the Earth will cool off. We humans will have to just adjust to the Earth's temperature. If the Earth start to cool off just wear more long selves, no big deal.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
7 Apr 08
Hello Gewcew,
I agree that to jump on the cooling bandwagon is just as silly as jumping on the warming bandwagon.
I also agree that the hunt for R&D funds is at the heart of the perpetuation of this wholly untested warming propoganda. I certainly appreciate the visual that you've provided -- licking their chops. And perhaps a bit of salivation to go along with it, eh?
My personal take on Archibald's research is that he really doesn't support the concept of CO2 as a factor in warming. Rather, his work specifically points to solar activity as the source of Earth's temperature variance. He is suggesting the addition of CO2 more as a boon to vegetative output, in the presence of colder surface temps. If you believe that I have misinterpreted his intent, please do correct me.
Thanks, I appreciate your having shared your thoughts on this issue!
@drannhh (15219)
• United States
6 Apr 08
I'm going to roll with the punches, but personally I have always thought we are in much more danger from global cooling than global warming. Neither of these dangers, though, can compare with the stupidity of the Chicken Little's who are going around saying the sky will fall in and it will be OUR fault if we don't agree with the politically correct version of science. I could never be a "real" scientist because I just couldn't ever follow the party line...not any party line. The word science itself means truth, and truth isn't defined by what everybody else thinks, is it?
Many great thinkers across the ages have lost their lives and property and in some cases their sanity because what they knew to be true wasn't popular at the time. Many of them turned out to be right, however.
2 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
7 Apr 08
Hello Drannhh,
I tend to agree that cooling represents a more significant threat to the Human condition. Colder temps means shorter growing seasons. Which means less food, or more land dedicated to food production.
I imagine that you've known some scientific academics who were 'on board' with the cooling theories being discussed throughout the last quarter-century. I know that I have had some very interesting discussions with a geo-physicist who worked on the ice-core project.
You're right in pointing out that consensus in science is counter intuitive. As well, those in the know who stood in opposition to popular consensus have had a tough go of it. Imagine being Archimedes, Copernicus, Andre Ampere, etc... I'm sure that they all took their fair share of abuse. Great point, Drannhh!
1 person likes this
@Guardian208 (1095)
• United States
7 Apr 08
Ladyluna,
I am so glad that you posted this. I often feel like a lone voice in the wilderness on this issue. I have not ever bought into the whole "Global Warming" scheme. (Did you notice how they shifted the name of the crisis? It was global warming, now it is Global Climate Change")
1. I am also glad someone else remembers the Global Cooling 'crisis' from the 70s and 80s. If I remember correctly, most of our current meteorological satellites were placed in space to help monitor global cooling. But to answer your question, no and yes. No because I don't believe there is anything substantial we can do to affect climate change one way or another. And we can't afford to be wrong. I believe that this planet has the ability to heal itself. It has been here for a long time and as your references point out, we have experienced much greater temperature swings in the past. We should just ride it out.
But I think we should get on the global cooling bandwagon if for no other reason than to undermine the efforts of those who are positioning for control of the global warming crisis. We need to stop the momentum that movement has achieved.
2. When the global cooling crisis lost its momentum, environmentalists lost millions in funding and environmental issues were placed on the back burner in most cases. We had passed all kinds of new anti-pollution laws, vehicle emissions were down, factory pollution output was cut way back, our rivers and streams had healed themselves, nuclear energy concerns were addressed after 3 Mile Island. Don't get me wrong, these were all very good things, but environmentalists did not have much to hang their hat on. In comes Al Gore riding the white horse of environmental crisis and finally the environmentalists had something to rally around. All those who were wandering around without a cause now had one. BOOM! The Global Warming crisis springs out of the ashes.
3. I really think that our planet is much more resilient that we give it credit for. It will take care of itself. I think it is arrogant of us to think we can manage the planet.
4. I really think that guys like Al Gore and universities that require funding from environmental studies are driving this thing. Mr. Gore would have faded into history without his book and Nobel prize. Universities and for profit companies that get funding to study and come up with solutions to the 'crisis' would be lost without that money. They are perpetuating this movement for their own benefit alone.
I also think that it is a way for our socialist leaning leaders to assume control of more and more of our lives. They want to control the cars we drive, the price of fuel, how and where we smoke, what we produce, how we produce it, where it is produced etc. etc. Because this is a global 'crisis', they can impose these controls globally, not just nationally.
That's my 2-cents.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
7 Apr 08
Guardian,
Yes, I did notice the shift from "global warming" to "climate change". I guess when one has dumped that much money into investing in the creation of a phenomenon, a little thing like facts ought not stand in the way, eh?
I wholeheartedly agree with your claims that while there is little that we can do to genuinely affect the plantetary temperature variance, that any efforts that we might make in that regard will be subject to a 'ripple effect'. While our ecology is amazing, and resillient it is a 'house of cards', nonetheless. I'd say that it's probably prudent to remember Newton's Third Law: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Great point!
Speaking of using the cooling models to counter the warming argument: I suspect that that is precisely what Dr. Archibald intended. Of course, that's only my humble opinion. Archibald’s quote sounds pretty derisive, to me anyway: “if the developed countries of the world want to be caring and sharing to the countries of the Third World, the best thing that could be done for them is to increase atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.”
I agree that while the would be profiteers seek to perpetuate this grand scheme, that it also fully feeds into the socialist agenda.
Hmmm, based on my personal assessment -- I'd gladly offer ten times the perceived value of your .02. What'dya think? Has my offer made your day? (chuckle, chuckle) Oh wait, if I was Al Gore, I'd charge you twenty cents to volunteer your two cents.! OK, I'll chide myself for making fun of our former Vice President. Shame on me!
1 person likes this
@Guardian208 (1095)
• United States
7 Apr 08
Lol. Good think they are not taxing us on our "posting footprint"!
1 person likes this
@Phlamingho (7822)
• Denmark
6 Apr 08
The problem for us "normal" people is that we only know what the so called experts tell us. Today we need to limit co2 tomorrow we don't have to worry about a thing...!? It's really ahrd to keep track of with all these different informations. However I think we can all agree with these theories from Dr. Archibald is not the common understanding of what's good for the planet :)
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
7 Apr 08
Hello Phlamingo,
You make a good point about it being difficult for lay people to follow the contradictory theories of the Science World. It rather reminds me of the vacillation between 'eating eggs is healthy', versus 'eating eggs will kill ya'. Even the experts are simply hypothesizing!
As for your mention of Dr. Archibald presenting an uncommon understanding of what is good for the planet: Well, actually that's partly true, and partly not. Although I have yet to hear any other scientist suggest that we need to create more CO2, the fact remains that from the 1970s through the time that Global Warming hysteria encapsulated the world (just a few short years ago), a very great number of scientists were espousing the cooling models that Dr. Archibald reiterated in his two lectures, referenced herein. As well, the tracking of the decreased solar activity is being espoused by a number of reputable scientists. In fact, Redyellowblackdog has a two month old discussion on the very subject -- which is still generating current activity. You might want to check it out -- it's a very interesting article & discussion.
@bradhart (659)
• United States
7 Apr 08
I have read his work and he is a self absorbed idiot with more interest in makign aname for himself as a scientist than he is actually bing a scientist.
1) First off we are just about to a point where we will be dumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere naturally. With the global warming going on we are melting permafrost releasing naturally stored co2 and methane from frozen peat bogs in huge amounts. This will continue for some time.
2)Most global cooling science is people trying to make a name by just being controversial.
3) in reality both global cooling and global warming are part of the same cyclical process
4) the man probably should be removed from the gene pool
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
7 Apr 08
Hello Bradhart,
What I find amusing is that your argument that global cooling theorists are just trying to make a name for themselves is precisely the same argument that has been applied to warming theorists.
EXCEPT that the many, multi-decade 'Ice Core Projects' confirm the existence of the 100,000 year cycle.
If you wish to provide the peat bogs argument for consideration, please substantiate the argument with your favorite link(s). I can speak to the impressive level of curiosity for most of the respondents to this discussion. So, if there is validity to the Peat Bog theory, then I, for one, will be happy to banter it about.
Though, I think that it's a bit harsh to suggest that Dr. Archibald be removed from the gene pool. He is entitled to his opinion, just as you are. If you tread into controversial waters, would you support your own removal from the gene pool? I would think not. So, in this case it would seem that the Golden Rule would apply. Hey, if none has called for the end of the Gore gene, even after his claim of having invented the internet, then I think that 'this here town is big enough' for multiple perspectives, eh?
