Is Higher CO2 Necessarily Harmful?

No....they are not. Try looking at the links, which is why I gave them to you.

 

Sorry but the models have proven completely worthless for prediction over just 25 years which give the entire hypothesis is predicated on them is rather embarrassing. Given that what makes you think that makes them good for predictions over the next 100 ! Why should we even dream of basing legislation of any kind on them ?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

 

I see....so once you are clearly shown to be incorrect, you switch goalposts to avoid the obvious embarrassment. Should I take the bait and allow you to dig deeper?

...hmmmm....

Shall we address this comment: "Sorry but the models have proven completely worthless for prediction over just 25 years"....seems as good a place as any to begin.

"All models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions would be wrong. Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model. All other known forcings are adequate in explaining temperature variations prior to the rise in temperature over the last thirty years, while none of them are capable of explaining the rise in the past thirty years. CO2 does explain that rise, and explains it completely without any need for additional, as yet unknown forcings.

Where models have been running for sufficient time, they have also been proved to make accurate predictions. For example, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo allowed modellers to test the accuracy of models by feeding in the data about the eruption. The models successfully predicted the climatic response after the eruption. Models also correctly predicted other effects subsequently confirmed by observation, including greater warming in the Arctic and over land, greater warming at night, and stratospheric cooling."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

"Analysis of climate change modelling for past 15 years reveal accurate forecasts of rising global temperatures

Forecasts of global temperature rises over the past 15 years have proved remarkably accurate, new analysis of scientists’ modelling of climate change shows.

The debate around the accuracy of climate modelling and forecasting has been especially intense recently, due to suggestions that forecasts have exaggerated the warming observed so far – and therefore also the level warming that can be expected in the future. But the new research casts serious doubts on these claims, and should give a boost to confidence in scientific predictions of climate change.

The paper, published on Wednesday in the journal Nature Geoscience, explores the performance of a climate forecast based on data up to 1996 by comparing it with the actual temperatures observed since. The results show that scientists accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade, relative to the decade to 1996, to within a few hundredths of a degree."
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/27/climate-change-models-predict-remarkably-accurate-results/


Next.....or did you end up biting your foot.

 

Hmmm . Lets see now should I choose the interpretation of a NASA employed climate scientist who has worked in the field for decades or should I choose the interpretation of a activist cartoonist blogger and a left wing newspaper article.

Choices choices !

 

You seem to be unaware that the models predict current temperatures at plus/minus 2C.

 

CO2 is not a pollutant, because it is not harmful when released into the atmosphere.

CO2 is not toxic in any plausible atmospheric concentration.

 

With independent data?

Sorry, I simply can't believe these are all entire new, entirely handmade and all accurate. And that there is absolutely no "crosstalk" in either data or sources.

 

And what is the amount of change?

If it is more then 2c one way or another I may eat my hat.

 

Bowerbird has been informed about my list many times but continues to be intellectually dishonest.

Your argument against the list is a strawman, as the title explicitly says;

"1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm"

Which is further clarified in the Preface:

Preface: The following papers support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or ACC/AGW Alarm [Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW)].

ACC/AGW Alarm: (defined), "concern relating to a perceived negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic."

And in the "Rebuttals to Criticism section";

Criticism: Paper [Insert Name] does not argue against AGW.
Rebuttal: This is a strawman argument as the list not only includes papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW but also ACC/AGW Alarm. Thus, a paper does not have to argue against AGW to still support skeptic arguments against alarmist conclusions (e.g. Hurricanes are getting worse due to global warming). Valid skeptic arguments include that AGW is exaggerated or inconsequential, such as those made by Richard S. Lindzen Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT and John R. Christy Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at UHA.

Incorrect, the papers are fully cited and sourced so people will actually look at them. If there was something to hide I would have made it as difficult as possible to locate and read the papers.

This is completely false and you have been explained this many times repeatedly. ALL of the counted papers have been peer-reviewed and published in a peer-reviewed journal. NOT A SINGLE PAPER IS AN "OP-ED" OR A "LETTER TO THE EDITOR".

Again, read the "Rebuttals to Criticism" section,

Criticism: Paper [Insert Name] is an Opinion/Editorial.
Rebuttal: This is a fraudulent claim, as every counted paper on the list is either a peer-reviewed research or review article.

Criticism: Paper [Insert Name] is not peer-reviewed because it is a "Letter".
Rebuttal: "Letters" is a term used to describe a type of peer-reviewed scientific document format in certain scholarly journals such as Nature. These original research articles should not be confused with "Letters to the Editor".

Strawman, where does the list claim the paper says global warming is not happening? This paper was included because it supports skeptic arguments against alarmist claims relating to permafrost catastrophically melting,

"We report the presence of relict ground ice in subarctic Canada that is greater than 700,000 years old, with the implication that ground ice in this area has survived past interglaciations that were warmer and of longer duration than the present interglaciation."

 

Not toxic as in poisonous.

However it has the same problem that Carbon Monoxide has. To high a percentage and the body attempts to use it as an active respiration gas, which causes death. Not from the gas itself, but from our inability to exchange CO or CO2 in our respiratory system.

 

Which claim has been easily debunked?

How many times am I going to have to come here until you get your facts right about my website? When are you going to be intellectually honest?

 

Incorrect, Carbon Monoxide (CO) is dangerous at just over 100ppm, while Carbon Dioxide (CO2) requires over 50,000ppm,

- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not toxic until 5% (50,000ppm) concentration
- Any detrimental effects of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) including chronic exposure to 3% (30,000ppm) are reversible
- OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH occupational exposure standards are 0.5% (5,000 ppm) Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
- Submarine Crews live and work in a Carbon Dioxide (CO2) rich environment of 3,500 to 4,100 ppm on average

Go figure out what the current atmospheric levels of CO2 are.

So what Roy said was, correct - "CO2 is not toxic in any plausible atmospheric concentration"

 

Dr. Spencer's credentials are impeccable,

Roy W. Spencer, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Michigan (1978 ); M.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin (1980); Ph.D. Meteorology (Thesis: "A case study of African wave structure and energetics during Atlantic transit"), University of Wisconsin (1982); Research Scientist, Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin (1982-1984); Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA (1984-2001); MSFC Center Director's Commendation (1989); NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991); U.S. Team Leader, Multichannel Imaging Microwave Radiometer (MIMR) Team, NASA (1992-Present); Team Leader, AMSR-E Science Team, NASA (1994-Present); American Meteorological Society's Special Award (1996); Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2001-Present)

The only way you can ignore his scientific arguments is with baseless personal attacks and dishonest ad hominems.

 

Pay attention the gray lines prior to 2000. These lines indicate the model temperature climatologies, many of which are running 1-2C above or below observed temperatures.

 

Our lungs can exchange CO and CO2 from the air into our bloodstream. That's what actually does the harm to us, is too much of the respective gases in our bloodstream..Not sure what you meant by "exchange"but if you meant from air to blood stream and vice-versa, than yes our lungs can do that..If they couldn't we wouldn't be able to expel CO2 from our bodies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercapnia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide_poisoning

 

And you missed the point.

It is not poisonous as in "it will kill you like arsenic", it simply is absorbed over oxygen and you suffocate. It is not any kind of toxicity that kills you, it is suffocation because it tends to supplant oxygen.

Which is right within the margin of error. That is exactly my point.

Look, I predict the Stock market will go up, or down, within a 10 point margin of error. And 98% of the time I will be right, no matter what it does.

The point is that it is not "toxic" in and of itself. You can stand in a room full of the stuff, as long as you have an air supply. We consume large amounts of it via soft drinks, to no ill effect. It is only it's ability to replace oxygen in out respiration system that makes it dangerous.

But not "toxic". If it was really "toxic", then how can we consume large quantities of Pepsi with no ill effect? Or Pop Rocks? If it was really "toxic", that would kill us.

 

ROFL, I think we have a wire crossed here somewhere.. I didn't say it was toxic in the atmosphere. That's the warmer "co2 is pollution nonsense I hate. All I was saying is why that our lungs can "exchange it". Doesn't make it a good or bad thing in moderation. And if by some miracle CO2 levels reached 3 ppm then we may have a problem, until then it's not..

 

I missed nothing, as this is exactly what I have been arguing. CO2 will never (at least not for thousands of years) reach the levels in the atmosphere necessary where it becomes harmful by supplanting oxygen.

 

To get serious, where oxygen depletion is an issue is in the water dead zones of the world. Nitrogen runoff, most of it fossil fuel based, appears to be the biggest contributor. I would also guess warming oceans due to AGW could also be a factor as warmer water holds less oxygen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology)

 

Here's an ideal. Tomorrow, release a gazillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and see how NOTHING changes whatsoever.

 

Where do you suggest I obtain this gazillion tons of CO2? There isn't enough fossil fuel in the ground to provide it.

 

False, absurd, and dangerously so. CO is extremely toxic, because it is highly reactive with blood hemoglobin. It binds with hemoglobin in place of oxygen, turning it a characteristic bright red, and preventing the blood from transporting oxygen to body tissues, especially the nerves and brain. CO2 is not reactive and has no such effect. Your false claim could lead someone to believe incorrectly that CO is no more dangerous than CO2. In fact, it is hundreds of times as dangerous.

That is a bald falsehood, as proved above. CO2 becomes toxic only in very high concentrations a hundred times the current atmospheric level.

 

You fail to grasp the point.

If it was toxic, then why do we consume it in beverages with no ill effect? Are there any cases of people dying from "CO2 toxicity" from drinking soda? It is not the "toxicity" of CO or CO2 that kills you, it is that the body will absorb it in preference to Oxygen, which causes death from asphyxiation.

In short, you die from lack of oxygen, not from the actual CO or CO2 itself.

 

Well, since pollution is "beneficial", we should come up a way to make more, no? Antarctica is prime real estate that is being unused.

 

Whatever you incorrectly imagine that means...