About 10 years ago a book was published that sought to duplicate the exact photo view taken on Custer’s expedition to the Black Hills of South Dakota in 1875 with a contemporary view of the site. Immediately when you look at these photos you will notice that in 1875 much of the area was devoid of trees. Due to controlling forest fires and systematic efforts at reforestation started as far back as the 1930s the Black Hills is now forest covered.

ANOTHER FALSE HOOD EXPOSED,PEAK OIL IS A FALLACY PERPETUATED BY BIG OIL AS WELL...MONETARILY MOTIVATED...THE EARTH IS CONSTANTLY PRODUCING OIL,OTHERWISE TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE DINOSAUR THEORY,THE EARTH WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN WALL TO WALL DINO'S....MOTHER EARTH IS A GIGANTIC MACHINE CONSTANTLY AT WORK...STUFF THOSE THEORIES AL GORE...AND I AM A REAL TENNESSEAN ....

I've felt this is probably true but this is the first time I have seen evidence of it. It only makes sense since trees feed on carbon dioxide. With all the increased CO2 we're going to have more plants and trees doing very, very well. Famines could be gone in the next hundred years!

Measured increases in CO2 are minimal and the planet is quite capable of adjusting and adapting.

Hysteria and hype are generated by those who are (were) hoping to cash in on the "crisis"...shame on them!

Measured increases in CO2 are minimal and the planet is quite capable of adjusting and adapting.

Tina,

Minimal compared to what, and adjust and adapt for how long?
References please.

Mark

Mark I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. Work has grabbed a lot more of my time lately (and it does come first, lol)

Minimal in that fluctuations are normal and have occur without catastophic harm to the planet over the long history of the earth. The earth adapts...always...since the beginning. It was designed that way.

The following information/opinion supports my position:

Congress Told that Increase ion CO2 Will Be Good for Mankind

27 Feb 09 - Princeton University physicist Dr. William Happer told a congressional committee hearing on Wednesday that global warming fears are "mistaken" and that the earth is currently in a "CO2 famine now" when you look at carbon dioxide (CO2) levels through geological time. ** "I believe that the increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind," Happer told the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Full Committee. ** "Almost never has CO2 levels been as low as it has been in the Holocene (geologic epoch) - 280 (parts per million - ppm) - that’s unheard of. Most of the time [CO2 levels] have been at least 1000 (ppm) and it’s been quite higher than that. Earth was just fine in those times," Happer added. "The oceans were fine, plants grew, animals grew fine." ** "The current warming also seems to be due mostly to natural causes, not to increasing levels of carbon dioxide." Read full article here.

Is CO2 causing higher temperatures or vice versa?

MYTH 1: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth. ** FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year, which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is a measurable driver of global warming (remember carbon dioxide only accounts for 0.03% of the atmosphere), let alone the tiny amount released by humankind. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere LAGS changes in temperature, up and down, ** Effectively, the man-made global warming theorists have put "effect" before "cause" - this completely debunks the entire global warming theory and shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile exercise. Geological field examination in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2, and amounts of carbon dioxide vary correspondingly as a result. ** MYTH 5: Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant. ** FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, many governments have included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as a means for the government to politically control it. In the US it's really quite terrifying and is a slap in the face to science. ** MYTH 6: Reducing car use will cut carbon dioxide levels and save the planet. ** FACT: The planet does not need saving from this mythical problem of CO2 emissions from cars, but taking this on anyway, removing every car from every road in every country overnight would NOT produce any change in the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere, and in any case it is pointless trying to alter climate by changing carbon dioxide levels because the cause and effect is the other way round. It is changes in the activity of the Sun that cause temperature changes on earth, with any temperature rise causing carbon dioxide to de-gas from the oceans.

The Sound Of Settled Science

We are doomed, say climate change scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations body that is organizing most of the climate change research occurring in the world today. Carbon dioxide from man-made sources rises to the atmosphere and then stays there for 50, 100, or even 200 years. This unprecedented buildup of CO2 then traps heat that would otherwise escape our atmosphere, threatening us all. ** "This is nonsense," says Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the same IPCC..... ** Catastrophic theories of climate change depend on carbon dioxide staying in the atmosphere for long periods of time -- otherwise, the CO2 enveloping the globe wouldn't be dense enough to keep the heat in. Until recently, the world of science was near-unanimous that CO2 couldn't stay in the atmosphere for more than about five to 10 years because of the oceans' near-limitless ability to absorb CO2. ** "This time period has been established by measurements based on natural carbon-14 and also from readings of carbon-14 from nuclear weapons testing, it has been established by radon-222 measurements, it has been established by measurements of the solubility of atmospheric gases in the oceans, it has been established by comparing the isotope mass balance, it has been established through other mechanisms, too, and over many decades, and by many scientists in many disciplines," says Prof. Segalstad, whose work has often relied upon such measurements. ** Then, with the advent of IPCC-influenced science, the length of time that carbon stays in the atmosphere became controversial. Climate change scientists began creating carbon cycle models to explain what they thought must be an excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These computer models calculated a long life for carbon dioxide. ** Amazingly, the hypothetical results from climate models have trumped the real world measurements of carbon dioxide's longevity in the atmosphere. Those who claim that CO2 lasts decades or centuries have no such measurements or other physical evidence to support their claims. ** Neither can they demonstrate that the various forms of measurement are erroneous. ** "They don't even try," says Prof. Segalstad. "They simply dismiss evidence that is, for all intents and purposes, irrefutable. Instead, they substitute their faith, constructing a kind of science fiction or fantasy world in the process." ** In the real world, as measurable by science, CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean reach a stable balance when the oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. "The IPCC postulates an atmospheric doubling of CO2, meaning that the oceans would need to receive 50 times more CO2 to obtain chemical equilibrium," explains Prof. Segalstad. "This total of 51 times the present amount of carbon in atmospheric CO2 exceeds the known reserves of fossil carbon-- it represents more carbon than exists in all the coal, gas, and oil that we can exploit anywhere in the world." ** Also in the real world, Prof. Segalstad's isotope mass balance calculations -- a standard technique in science -- show that if CO2 in the atmosphere had a lifetime of 50 to 200 years, as claimed by IPCC scientists, the atmosphere would necessarily have half of its current CO2 mass. Because this is a nonsensical outcome, the IPCC model postulates that half of the CO2 must be hiding somewhere, in "a missing sink." Many studies have sought this missing sink -- a Holy Grail of climate science research-- without success. ** "It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere," Prof. Segalstad concludes. "It is all a fiction."

Latest Peer-Reviewed Research: Sweden's Medieval Warming Hotter Than Today's Temperatures

Read more here.

A stalagmite from a cave in northwestern Sweden confirms that both the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age temperatures were substantially different than our modern temperatures. ** "Sundqvist et al. write that "the stable isotope records show enriched isotopic values during the, for Scandinavia, comparatively cold period AD 1300-1700 [which they equate with the Little Ice Age] and depleted values during the warmer period AD 800-1000 [which they equate with the Medieval Warm Period]." And as can clearly be seen from the figure above, the two δ18O depletion "peaks" (actually inverted valleys) of the Medieval Warm Period are both more extreme than the "peak" value of the Current Warm Period, which appears at the end of the record."

Canada Free Press

Life on earth evolved in times when CO2 levels were about 400% higher than at present. The current level of 386 ppm is not far above the 200 ppm level at which plants stop growing because of carbon dioxide starvation. Nurserymen know this and use gas burners to increase the CO2 level in their greenhouses and plant nurseries to 1,000 ppm or more. If the atmosphere reached this level there would be massive improvement in plant growth, with benefits for the whole environment. There is no danger to humans at this level - the CO2 levels in submarines may reach 8,000 ppm without problems for humans, and our exhaled breath has about 40,000 ppm of CO2. ** Warmth, increased evaporation from the oceans, increased precipitation and increased CO2 would be the magic combination for a greener planet. Burning fossil fuel adds CO2 and water to the atmosphere, and helps to return the world to the verdant conditions prevailing when our great coal deposits were formed.

Tina,

I want to be clear from the beginning. I am not worried about the planet. I am not really worried about the persistence of humanity. We are as resourceful as rats (a fellow omnivore). I am worried about what we call civilization. If the predictions of climate scientists comes true, we are back in the Early Middle Ages -- and we just got done talking about that was like.

Many of your posts claim that the earth will be fine and I agree. Plants will grow. Some will grow even faster. Animals will roam. The sun will shine. And humans will adapt, but only after walking away from all the wreckage

One article points out that life itself evolved at a time of much greater CO2 concentration. The fallacy in using such a statement to say WE have no worries lies in the fact that humans were not around at that time. In fact, no mammals were around then because the atmosphere had too little oxygen to support a mammal body type.

Another claim was that burning fossil fuel adds CO2 and water to the atmosphere, and helps to return the world to the verdant conditions prevailing when our great coal deposits were formed.” Unfortunately, that is not a world hospitable to humans.

I like the world the way it is (with less sex on TV). I do not want us to be messing with the climate and end up in the Jurassic.

As for the forcing factor, your articles are half right. In the geologic record, carbon followed warming. No one was digging it up and pumping carbon into the atmosphere. So the past offers little insight here. This is a single run experiment.

I look forward to your reply.

Mark

Mark I don't have much time...agin...but will attempt a quick response.

"If the predictions of climate scientists comes true, we are back in the Early Middle Ages -- and we just got done talking about that was like."

If we continue to address the problem with extreme solutions that transfer or redistribute money but do little to solve problems we will end up back in the mifddle ages also. We are sitting on the brink of financial collapse and the "solutions" being implemented will only make things worse. A smart measured transition to alternatives is sufficient in my opinion, especially since the science is not only not settled but is also in serious question.

"One article points out that life itself evolved at a time of much greater CO2 concentration. The fallacy in using such a statement to say WE have no worries lies in the fact that humans were not around at that time. In fact, no mammals were around then because the atmosphere had too little oxygen to support a mammal body type."

The point of posting the article was to show that warming is not a result of human activity. It offers evidence that warming is natural and cyclic and probably something for which our activities have little effect.

"I do not want us to be messing with the climate and end up in the Jurassic."

There is a lot of evidence that that possible outcome has been ginned up...until I have evidence real scientific proof I will continue to be very skeptical and suspicious of the motives of those who cheated and lied about the scientific evidence and received tons of money in grants with the potential to make a lot more through the creation of carbon trading schemes, etc.

"In the geologic record, carbon followed warming. No one was digging it up and pumping carbon into the atmosphere. So the past offers little insight here. This is a single run experiment."

You can dismiss the fact that levels were greater when humans were not burning fossil fuels but that would be extremely irresponsible according to other scientists. It would be in line with what the AGW scientists did to form the opinion and concensus.

I'm not sure what you meant by "this is a single run experiment".