Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout – The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist is a book written by Dr. Moore who is now telling us that CO2 isn’t the Evil Monster but is plant food and it does contribute to warming the planet but this is a good thing since we are in the middle of a series of very dangerous Ice Ages that get more and more dire every cycle, worse and worse. This scientist was once the toast of the left but now is tossed to the wolves due to saying verboten stuff. He just issued another book, which I highly recommend.
Moore – Positive Impact of Human CO2 Emissions
This study looks at the positive environmental effects of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, a topic which has been well established in the scientific literature but which is far too often ignored in the current discussions about climate change policy. All life is carbon based and the primary source of this carbon is the CO2 in the global atmosphere. As recently as 18,000 years ago, at the height of the most recent major glaciation, CO2 dipped to its lowest level in recorded history at 180 ppm, low enough to stunt plant growth.
This is only 30 ppm above a level that would result in the death of plants due to CO2 starvation. It is calculated that if the decline in CO2 levels were to continue at the same rate as it has over the past 140 million years, life on Earth would begin to die as soon as two million years from now and would slowly perish almost entirely as carbon continued to be lost to the deep ocean sediments. The combustion of fossil fuels for energy to power human civilization has reversed the downward trend in CO2 and promises to bring it back to levels that are likely to foster a considerable increase in the growth rate and biomass of plants, including food crops and trees. Human emissions of CO2 have restored a balance to the global carbon cycle, thereby ensuring the long-term continuation of life on Earth.
So true. Yet during the Ice Ages we saw the development, in Europe and North America of some of the most gigantic mammals of all. These animals thrived during the low CO2 regime. Why is that? We know so little about how evolution works its many wonders.
Another huge issue is how our planet is aging: it is not nearly as active today as it was when the moon was much, much closer, for example. 300 million years ago, tidal movements were huge, ten times greater than today! The moon’s effect on the oceans was literally gigantic!
The moon is sailing away, bit by bit, the oceans are quieting down compared to when the first animals ventured onto the beaches and moved onto land so long ago. Then there is volcanoes: these were much, much more intense millions and millions of years ago because of…the MOON!
Why is Moon speeding up and earth’s rotation is slowing down, until we are all dead! Tidal friction – YouTube
Again, as the moon sped across the sky day and night, the earth also SPUN FASTER, too! Every system was more dynamic than today. Over time, things literally wind down or get sucked into greater vortexes like black holes, indeed, we are doing exactly this: eventually what remains of our solar system will be sucked into the Milky Way black hole! Sad news! Couple of billion years give or take 10 or 20.
The ‘winding down’ business is called ‘entropy’.
Professor Moore:
There is no question that the climate has warmed during the past 300 years since the peak of the Little Ice Age. There is also no question that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and all else being equal, the emissions would result in some warming if CO2 rose to higher levels in the atmosphere. Yet, there is no definitive scientific proof that CO2 is a major factor in influencing climate in the real world. The Earth’s climate is a chaotic, non-linear, multivariant system with many unpredictable feedbacks, both positive and negative.
The biggest variable is our local star. It provides the heat and we know for certain that when there is little sun spot activity, it becomes colder very fast and if there is lots of sun spot activity like we see this very week, yes, it heats up fast, too! This is the most powerful force for all climate changes including the regular, rhythmic pulses of extreme cold we have been experiencing for the last several million years which is a very long time, isn’t it?
Global warmists are most anxious to prove that CO2 alone is the thing controlling the heat levels for our planet. Here is a classic example of how to do a fraudulent experiment that is designed to lie, not enlighten:
The above video is a stupid ‘experiment’ with huge flaws that claims CO2 heats up water more than O2. The Greenhouse Gas Demo – YouTube
The flaws are obvious: one bottle has very agitated water due to chemicals being introduced that are not just ‘CO2’ but a number of chemicals made in Alka Seltzer. One bottle has a much higher pressure range than the other. One has great agitation of the water due to chemistry going on whereas the other doesn’t.
Finally, one bottle is brilliantly, blindingly lit up due to the light shining on it due to BUBBLES while the other is still and quiet with zero bubbles and it isn’t refracting the light. One container has very active, agitated water and the other doesn’t have any activity at all.
Why does shaking a can of carbonated beverage increase its internal pressure? : askscience
[–]allkill 9 points 1 year ago
shaking the bottle creates tiny bubbles and these act as nuclei for bubble formation when the pressure is released. Without these nuclei bubble formation is mostly by heterogenous nucleation on the bottle walls, and that is slower.[–]thiosk 4 points 1 year ago
The next part of the question: why the foam. so there’s more bubbles in the can, those bubbles all occupy more volume, and the pressure goes up. Big deal, right? Now you pop the top and release that pressure. Immediately the volume of the bubbles expand as the pressure drops. Because there are bubbles throughout the soda column, the soda is violently churned and blasted through the opening by this volume change. Agitation causes more bubbles, so it’s violent.
All of these test cases with soda make great ways to describe the ideal gas law, PV=nRT. For more discussion, find the ask science discussions on 2-liter bottles: to crumple or not to crumple.
[–]emperor000 1 point 1 year ago*
The CO2 is dissolved in the water and the can is pressurized. If it is something like soda then there are other molecules also dissolved into the water. All of these are competing for space in the solution (including the solvent itself, the water). If it is just something like seltzer water then it is pretty much just CO2, but the result is the same: the CO2 is compressed into a lower volume than it would be out of solution and outside of the can.
The difference is that with soda, because there is salt and sugar also dissolved in the water the water is even more saturated and the CO2 is forced out of solution more readily. This is why a soda frothing is usually worse than plain carbonated water.
The reason for the rapid precipitation after the can is agitated is that agitating it creates bubbles that then act as nucleation points. Those bubbles increase the pressure (the undisolved gas will occupy more volume, so now we have higher pressure areas and lower pressure areas in the can). If the can stays closed, an equilibrium is eventually reached. Once it is open that equilibrium is destroyed. Pressure is decreased rapidly because the volume increases rapidly (to the size of the room, let’s say) and the CO2 already released will attempt to occupy that volume (to make an over simplification). Similarly, the CO2 that was dissolved under pressure will now precipitate out because the pressure is not high enough to keep it in solution and that causes a chain reaction as CO2 molecules bump into each other and form bubbles that violently escape, agitating the solution even more, which creates more bubbles, etc.
If the can is opened unagitated it isn’t as violent because while the pressure changed rapidly for the solution not enough CO2 had come out of solution to start that chain reaction.
It is like comparing a gun going off to an arrow being shot. They are not the same, different systems, different chemistry. A clear bottle of just CO2 and a clear bottle with only O2 can be compared to see which heats up and I would suggest the temperature differences would be much, much smaller.
Greenhouses are not hot due to CO2 levels and most commercial growers raise the CO2 levels because plants love this. What heats them up is how the heat is trapped inside when it comes from the sun. If there was no CO2 in greenhouses, they would still heat up if the sun shone on them!
When I took science courses, I was warned by my teachers to not do what this professor did: compare apples with oranges and then claim they are the same. The two bottles were absolutely not the same, one was full of bubbles and the other had none. This is the acute differential. Which this mindless professor Erik Christensen ignores.
Email:
emeinel@fairpoint.net
MAILING ADDRESS:
EMS NEWS
209 Greenhollow Rd
Petersburgh, NY 12138
Make checks out to ‘Elaine Supkis’
Click on the Pegasus icon on the right sidebar to donate via Paypal.
Culture of Life News 
It is called the ‘greenhouse effect’ as an analogy. I think the name goes back at least 150 years. The glass of the greenhouse scatters infrared light. It traps heat in a similar manner to the way CO2 in the air scatters infrared, trapping heat. Like all analogies, it is not an exact description.
Once again, Elaine, you have wandered over into junk science. Just because the soda-bottle-shaker above is practicing fraud, does not change the infrared spectrum of CO2, nor does it negate the fact that we humans have been digging up and burning every speck of mineral carbon we could find over the last 2 or 3 centuries.
Of course, that’s all gradually winding down now (Hubbert’s curve), and the proposed political ‘solutions’ to it consist of nothing but financial fraud. No doubt, in the next few decades, politicians will be thumping their chests and braying that they have saved the planet, because we are burning less coal/oil/gas at that time. Nothing they do will make much difference in the 400 ppm carbon level.
But, here’s the deal: nobody really knows if this 400 ppm of CO2 traps enough heat to make a noticeable difference over the noise of ordinary seasonal cycles, water vapor (H2O is also a greenhouse gas), and just general noise from a dynamic atmosphere and a dynamic star.
Bottom line: got maple seeds? Then the ‘carbon credit’ weenies owe you a lot of money. Because, using the logic of investment bankers, each one of those seeds counts as a huge maple forest, absorbing zillions of tons of carbon and locking it into wood.
It has been tempting to get a t shirt that just says “It’s the Sun,stupid”
Never ever did it get ‘too hot for living things’ even when CO2 was way, way higher than today.
On the other hand WE HAVE HAD OVER 2 MILLION YEARS CLIMATE 90% of which were ICE AGES! All interglacials were uniformly SHORT AS HELL.
Each began swiftly with NO CO2 involvement in warming up and all ended right when CO2 was highest and all ended SUDDENLY and what would cause that to happen over and over and over and over again dozens of times?
The heat source, our sun!
Further, why does the graphs showing all this look suspiciously like a graph of a heart beating? I noticed this years ago. It is rather frightening.
Pretending we control the climate is one of the most foolish things humans ever attempted. The gods laugh.
The Aztec priests of old, pretended that they controlled the Sun and the Weather. They’d tear the hearts out of their victims and sacrifice them to the Sun. It worked for them, for a while.
‘Carbon credits’ are very much like that. Just give all your money to the priests and they will make that villainous carbon go away out of the air (in a century or two of course)…
Information on so;ar cycles here—http://iceagenow.info/106-year-old-photo-proves/