Comments on: Obama Scores Zero on Econ 101 http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/02/25/obama-scores-zero-on-econ-101/ Climate Change News & Analysis Thu, 07 Feb 2013 05:41:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Bill Beckhamhttp://www.globalwarming.org/2009/02/25/obama-scores-zero-on-econ-101/comment-page-1/#comment-26684 Bill Beckham Sat, 28 Feb 2009 11:36:21 +0000 http://www.openmarket.org/?p=10408#comment-26684 As a chemist, I can understand the amount of energy absorbed by carbon dioxide and trapped as heat, but the equation is far more complex than just dealing with carbon dioxide. I also found it interesting that in the last 300 years the population of the earth has increased about 10 fold but the increase of CO2 has only doubled, despite the fact that man has slashed and burned millions of acres of forest. So one must come to the conclusion that the dynamics of atmospheric chemistry as it relates to carbon dioxide is far more complex than we presently understand. As a chemist, I can understand the amount of energy absorbed by carbon dioxide and trapped as heat, but the equation is far more complex than just dealing with carbon dioxide. I also found it interesting that in the last 300 years the population of the earth has increased about 10 fold but the increase of CO2 has only doubled, despite the fact that man has slashed and burned millions of acres of forest. So one must come to the conclusion that the dynamics of atmospheric chemistry as it relates to carbon dioxide is far more complex than we presently understand.

]]> By: Freyahttp://www.globalwarming.org/2009/02/25/obama-scores-zero-on-econ-101/comment-page-1/#comment-26667 Freya Thu, 26 Feb 2009 08:49:01 +0000 http://www.openmarket.org/?p=10408#comment-26667 Bob, "it is present in our atmosphere in tiny amounts, measured in parts per million (ppm)." That's a tad misleading, though, isn't it, since less than 1% of the atmosphere is responsible for the entire greenhouse effect. Experiments have shown that CO2 accounts for between 10 and 30% of it. "a study of climate proxies that CO2 has been present in amounts as high as 20 times that of today." But studies of solar proxies show that typical stars (like our sun) beighten as they age. The sun of 500 million years ago (when CO2 were that high) was dimmer than it is today, accounting for the temperature. From the article: "Yes, renewable energy will become profitable, many jobs will be created, and we’ll have to settle for a significantly lower standard of living as a result" I don't know about cap-and-trade, but it has been shown that carbon emissions can be cut without significant economic damage. As part of Kyoto, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Germany, France, and Denmark (and Norway, if you count land-use changes) all cut their CO2 emissions to below 1990 levels. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Increase_in_greenhouse_gas_emission_since_1990" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Incre...</a> Over the same period (since 2000), the GDPs of every one of those countries grew faster than that of the United States. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_growth_2000%E2%80%932007" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by...</a> Bob,

"it is present in our atmosphere in tiny amounts, measured in parts per million (ppm)."

That's a tad misleading, though, isn't it, since less than 1% of the atmosphere is responsible for the entire greenhouse effect. Experiments have shown that CO2 accounts for between 10 and 30% of it.

"a study of climate proxies that CO2 has been present in amounts as high as 20 times that of today."

But studies of solar proxies show that typical stars (like our sun) beighten as they age. The sun of 500 million years ago (when CO2 were that high) was dimmer than it is today, accounting for the temperature.

From the article:

"Yes, renewable energy will become profitable, many jobs will be created, and we’ll have to settle for a significantly lower standard of living as a result"

I don't know about cap-and-trade, but it has been shown that carbon emissions can be cut without significant economic damage. As part of Kyoto, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Germany, France, and Denmark (and Norway, if you count land-use changes) all cut their CO2 emissions to below 1990 levels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Incre…

Over the same period (since 2000), the GDPs of every one of those countries grew faster than that of the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by…

]]> By: Bob R Geologist, Tuchttp://www.globalwarming.org/2009/02/25/obama-scores-zero-on-econ-101/comment-page-1/#comment-26664 Bob R Geologist, Tuc Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:36:00 +0000 http://www.openmarket.org/?p=10408#comment-26664 The idea that CO2 must be suppressed because it is a greenhouse gas is wrong logically and scientifically. Logically, because it is present in our atmosphere in tiny amounts, measured in parts per million (ppm). Since the ending of the Little Ice Age (150 yrs ago) it has roughly doubled in amount to 390 ppms. The science of ancient climates is pretty definite from a study of climate proxies that CO2 has been present in amounts as high as 20 times that of today. There is no evidence in the sediments of those times that temperatures became to hot for life to survive on land. Where is the rationale that man's minescule contribution of CO2 to our air should be a danger to mankind? The imagined danger lies only in the science deficient brains of environmentalists. Itself a considerable danger to man in placing unnecessary strains on our already overburdened economy. The idea that CO2 must be suppressed because it is a greenhouse gas is wrong logically and scientifically. Logically, because it is present in our atmosphere in tiny amounts, measured in parts per million (ppm). Since the ending of the Little Ice Age (150 yrs ago) it has roughly doubled in amount to 390 ppms. The science of ancient climates is pretty definite from a study of climate proxies that CO2 has been present in amounts as high as 20 times that of today. There is no evidence in the sediments of those times that temperatures became to hot for life to survive on land. Where is the rationale that man's minescule contribution of CO2 to our air should be a danger to mankind? The imagined danger lies only in the science deficient brains of environmentalists. Itself a considerable danger to man in placing unnecessary strains on our already overburdened economy.

]]>