Is carbon dioxide a pollutant?

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 24. toukokuuta 2006 klo 15:26 (GMT)

Share this Blog

"Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution, we call it life!" That's the slogan of two 60-second TV ads airing in 14 U.S. cities May 14-28. The ads are being run by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). According to their web site, CEI is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government. They tout a Wall Street Journal article which calls CEI "the best environmental think tank in the country".

Who funds the Competitive Enterprise Institute?
A variety of businesses fund CEI, but the fossil-fuel industry is one of their main contributors. Exxon documents show that the company gave $270,000 to CEI in 2004 alone. $180,000 of that was earmarked for "global climate change and global climate change outreach." Exxon has contributed over $1.6 million to CEI since 1998. Other oil companies, such as Amoco and Texaco, also contribute to CEI, through the American Petroleum Institute. So, it is safe to mentally replace the "paid for by the Competitive Enterprise Institute" tag on the ads with, "paid for by the fossil fuel industry." I speculated in an April blog that the Wall Street Journal opinion piece by Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT (and other op-eds that appeared nationwide about the same time) were funded as part of an orchestrated public relations campaign by the fossil fuel industry. The appearance of the new TV ads are also likely part of the same PR campaign. The ads use language similar to the April op-ed pieces, using the word "alarmist" or its variations to describe those who warn that climate change presents a danger. The ads were timed to launch just before the opening of Al Gore's new film on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth", due out today in New York City.

What do the ads say?
Here is the full transcript of the narration for the second ad, titled "Glaciers":

You've seen those headlines about global warming. The glaciers are melting, we're doomed. That's what several studies supposedly found.

But other scientific studies found exactly the opposite. Greenland's glaciers are growing, not melting. The Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker, not thinner.

Did you see any big headlines about that? Why are they trying to scare us?

Global warming alarmists claim the glaciers are melting because of carbon dioxide from the fuels we use. Let's force people to cut back, they say. But we depend on those fuels, to grow our food, move our children, light up our lives.

And as for carbon dioxide, it isn't smog or smoke, it's what we breathe out and plants breathe in. Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution, we call it life.

What is the validity of the scientific results quoted in the ads?
When the narrator says "Greenland's glaciers are growing, not melting", the screen image is of a 2005 paper that appeared in Science magazine, "Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland". A glowing halo appears around the word "Growth". If you go to the trouble to read the article, you'll discover that it discusses satellite measurements which show that the interior of Greenland's ice sheet has thickened by about 6 cm/year since 1999. This thickening is attributed to increased precipitation, primarily due to natural cycles. However, 25% of the increase is attributed to increased atmospheric water vapor from heightened evaporation caused by global warming. The paper also notes that the glaciers at the edge of Greenland have thinned by about 2 cm/year since 1999, and conclude that their measurements cannot be used to tell if the glaciers of Greenland are showing a net gain or loss in recent years. So, the claim that "Greenland's glaciers are growing, not melting" is a half truth. Ice in Greenland's interior is getting thicker, but the the glaciers at the edges are getting thinner. As I discussed in a blog on Greenland's Greenhouse, this is a very complicated system with many unknowns! Making a simple statement that Greenland's glaciers are not melting--or are melting--hides the very high scientific uncertainty about what is going on there. Also left out from the ads is that most of Greenland's glaciers have shown a marked increase in flow rate in recent years.

Is the Antarctic ice sheet getting thicker?
When the CEI ad claims, "The Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker, not thinner", an image of another 2005 Science paper appears, Snowfall-Driven Growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet Mitigates Recent Sea-Level Rise. Another halo of light appears around the word "Growth". Again, we are being subjected to a partial truth. Antarctica is divided into two ice sheets, and East and West Antarctic ice sheets, and this paper is only talking about one of the ice sheets. As I discussed in my March 7 blog, Antarctica Melting?, the question of whether Antarctica is undergoing a significant net melting or mass gain is not known--this is another very complicated system that we do not understand very well. In the words of the lead author of the paper, Professor Curt H. Davis, Director of the Center for Geospatial Intelligence at the University of Missouri:

"Our result is only for East Antarctica. Moreover, we make it clear that our results are for the interior and it is well known that the edges are losing mass." In a University of Missouri press release issued May 19, Dr. Davis states: "These television ads are a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate. They are selectively using only parts of my previous research to support their claims. They are not telling the entire story to the public."

Is Carbon Dioxide a pollutant?
The fossil fuel industry points out in their ads that carbon dioxide it essential for both plant life and human life. Is it wrong, then, to label carbon dioxide as a pollutant? The definition of pollution in Webster's dictionary is "to make physically impure or unclean: Befoul, dirty." By that definition, carbon dioxide is not pollution. However, Webster's also has the definition: "to contaminate (an environment) esp. with man-made waste." Carbon dioxide is a waste gas produced by fossil fuel combustion, so can be classified as man-made waste. One can also make the case that carbon dioxide is contaminating the environment, since increased CO2 from burning fossil fuels has already harmed sea life. Carbon dioxide, when dissolved in sea water, is deadly to shell-building microorganisms that form an important part of the food chain in some cold ocean regions. The extra CO2 lowers the pH and make the water too acidic for these organisms to build their shells. As I reported in my blog on Acidifying the Oceans, the observed increase in acidity of 0.1 pH units during the past century due to fossil fuel burning, and expected continued acidification in the coming decades, could cause a massive die off of marine life and collapse of the food chain in these ocean areas. Based on these arguments, the fossil fuel industry's slogan, "Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution, we call it life!" could just as truthfully be phrased, "Carbon dioxide. We call it pollution, and we call it death." One need only look at our sister planet, Venus, to see that too much "life" can be a bad thing. There, an atmosphere of 96% carbon dioxide has created a hellish greenhouse effect. The temperatures of 860 F at the surface are hot enough to melt lead. There's not too much life there!

Crediting fossil fuels for our economic prosperity
The fossil fuel industry ads point out that the burning of fossil fuels has brought dramatic increases in wealth and prosperity to the world. This is a good point, and we should not seriously damage the basis of the world economy through reckless efforts to cut CO2 emissions. We can credit a good portion of the marvels of modern civilization to the availability of cheap fossil fuels to power our technological revolution. However, we shouldn't get all misty-eyed about the wondrous things we've accomplished by using this ready source of energy left for us by the fossilized plants of Earth's past. Any technology can bring about terrible suffering if used unwisely. Consider that fossil fuels have also made possible the horrors of modern warfare. The tanks of Hitler's blitzkrieg--and the aircraft that have dropped the bombs that have killed millions of innocent people this past century--were all powered by fossil fuels. Air pollution from fossil fuel burning has killed millions as well. We need to be honest about both the importance of fossil fuels, and the dangers they pose if used unwisely. The threat of climate change due to burning fossil fuels needs to be addressed truthfully, so that we can make wise decisions about the future of our energy technology. The untruthful new ad campaign by the fossil fuel industry is harmful to this end.

Jeff Masters

PS, my next blog will be Friday, when I'll probably review the global weather for April and give an update on the tropics. In a later blog, I'll be sure to review Al Gore's new movie, and comment on its truthfulness. However, I don't think the movie is playing until mid-June here in Michigan. BTW, most of us will never get to see the "we call it life" ads on TV. They are only playing in Albany, Albuquerque, Anchorage, Austin, Charleston WV, Dallas, Dayton, Denver, Harrisburg, Phoenix, Sacramento, Santa Barbara, Springfield IL, and Washington DC. I guess the fossil fuel industry wanted to run them in some test markets to see how they did before attempting a more widespread release.

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 290 - 240

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6Blog Index

279. BahaHurican
28. toukokuuta 2006 klo 11:02 (GMT)
They are only playing in Albany, Albuquerque, Anchorage, Austin, Charleston WV, Dallas, Dayton, Denver, Harrisburg, Phoenix, Sacramento, Santa Barbara, Springfield IL, and Washington DC.

What do all these cities have in common?

They are very unlikely to be directly affected by a hurricane (well, with the possible exception of DC ).
Member Since: 25.10.2005 Posts: 19 Comments: 20742
278. IKE
26. toukokuuta 2006 klo 16:14 (GMT)
Per StormJunkie..."My main point was that Accucrap should not be touting/hyping something in that time frame."....

It WASN'T Accucrap. It was the GFS computer model. READ WHAT I'M SAYING!!!

Like MichaelSTL stated...they use the GFS computer model as one of their long range forecasts...6-10 days...and up to 14 days.
Member Since: 9.06.2005 Posts: 23 Comments: 37858
277. IKE
26. toukokuuta 2006 klo 16:10 (GMT)
"Ike lay off the Accucrack. I still can not believe anyone was seriously talking about a 300hr GFS forcast.".....

Hey...stormjunkie....this is a tropical weather blog. I didn't say it was gonna happen. I'm just commenting on what it's forecasting.

Whatever you're on, you need to get off of OR whatever you're not on, you need to find some.

Geez...what a joke.
Member Since: 9.06.2005 Posts: 23 Comments: 37858
276. sayhuh
26. toukokuuta 2006 klo 15:34 (GMT)

If the stratosphere is coolest at the bottom, and warms toward the top..what stops clouds from moving toward the warmer temps at the top of the strat? [Trying to learn]
274. sayhuh
26. toukokuuta 2006 klo 13:57 (GMT)
Just could always be worse Link. What is the record for the tallest Cum/Nim cloud? I thought I remembered associated to the Coffeyville event tops up to 72,000 ft. Is that possible? Tried to find something, but couldnt find anything defining record cloud top heights...
273. leftyy420
26. toukokuuta 2006 klo 13:48 (GMT)
oh my god its lefty
Member Since: 24.08.2005 Posts: 35 Comments: 1987
272. StormJunkie
26. toukokuuta 2006 klo 13:46 (GMT)
Michael I understand that there can be some level of accuracy to any forecast. As far as intensity, landfall, or formation dates I put little stock in the models at 100+hrs unless there is already a feature that is going to move in to more favorable conditions. My main point was that Accucrap should not be touting/hyping something in that time frame. There is just no need for it.

Member Since: 17.08.2005 Posts: 26 Comments: 15472
269. StormJunkie
26. toukokuuta 2006 klo 13:32 (GMT)
Ike lay off the Accucrack. I still can not believe anyone was seriously talking about a 300hr GFS forcast.

Has been a lot of hail lately. I may have to go look for some of it this evening.

Find the fresh weather links you need here:

Have a great day ya'll. I'll check in later.

Member Since: 17.08.2005 Posts: 26 Comments: 15472
268. newt3d
26. toukokuuta 2006 klo 13:29 (GMT)
Strong storms like the one down in Austin around the 12th had clouds up to 50,000 feet. That is 20,000 feet taller than regular storm cells. It takes a lot of heat to lift water vapor that high, and in fact Texas had power outages just days before from record high unseasonable temperatures.


Convection does not require a lot of heat, it requires a large temperature difference between the lower atmosphere and upper atmosphere. That can be caused by heating the low levels, or cooling the upper levels, or both.

Also, record highs are bound to happen quite frequently. Average high temperatures do not imply expected high temperatures. There are large variances in temperatures that exist from day to day, year to year. A large part of this variation has to do with fronts, and their alignment compared to you and compared to the time of day. Any strong front will cause near record highs in the location that's been in the warm sector all day until around 4pm. This same front, if there's an upper level low near it, will cause the upper levels of the atmosphere to be cold.

In order to blast through the insulating blanket of heat trapping gases we see violent storms of greater power than we are accustomed to seeing. That's "climate change" caused by Global Warming.

I don't attribute the strong storms to global warming ... I'd say a strong frontal system was in the area at the optimal time.
Member Since: 6.10.2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 90
265. WSI
26. toukokuuta 2006 klo 13:19 (GMT)
"Hail the size of Tea cups. Trained spotter
said it looked like styrophone bricks falling from the sky."

Yeah, that will ruin your day.
264. bappit
26. toukokuuta 2006 klo 13:11 (GMT)
05/25/2006 0630 PM

Yesterday in southern Indiana: Lynnville, Warrick County.

Hail m3.00 inch, reported by trained spotter.

Late report. Hail the size of Tea cups. Trained spotter
said it looked like styrophone bricks falling from the
Member Since: 18.05.2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 5563
262. IKE
26. toukokuuta 2006 klo 12:11 (GMT)
You could be right on the trach shifting. I'm sure that will happen again...nonetheless, it might be Alberto.
Member Since: 9.06.2005 Posts: 23 Comments: 37858
260. IKE
26. toukokuuta 2006 klo 12:06 (GMT)
"whats the latest on the 'tropical storm' the GFS was forecasting for South Carolina on June 3rd?".....

The GFS has been fairly consistent with a low/storm forming in the western carribean and heading north into the gulf the week of June 4th thru June 10th. It's been calling for it for about the last 3-5 model runs.

It's backed off on a South Carolina storm.
Member Since: 9.06.2005 Posts: 23 Comments: 37858
258. kerneld
26. toukokuuta 2006 klo 07:52 (GMT)
Nuclear is apparently not CO2 clean anyway, well at least not when the rich uranium deposits are mined out and you need to go to less accessible reserves.
257. ScienceCop
26. toukokuuta 2006 klo 07:27 (GMT)
Posted By: shadowchb at 5:39 PM GMT on May 24, 2006.
My problem is that most of the global warming 'science' I have seen, in the articles specifically blaming activities of mankind for all the problems, uses the 'reverse scientific method', that is it appears to advance a theory and then finds facts to justify that theory.

You are not trying to obtain the BEST picture nor the WHOLE picture. There are many whole books in the library and in the bookstores which tell the history of Global Warming Science History. Step by step by step, discoveries were made which then led to predictions. That's what science does. Science has two parts, both of which must always be present. (1) EXPLAIN diverse physical phenomena with a theory of underlying forces at work producing the visible results. (2) PREDICT things based on the theory. Explanations which cannot predict are simply wrong -- back to the drawing boards. Predictions without theory are tea-leaf reading, palmistry and crystalball gazing -- back to school. Weather forecasting is based on theories of invisible forces operative: things which can't be seen with human senses. The theories are used to make predictions, and to the extent that the explanations are correct, and correctly understood, the predictions are true.

Climate is a span of weather over 30 years or more. The same theories apply to climate as to weather, since climate is weather in the aggregate over long time spans. There is no special science for climate which doesn't exist elsewhere for general physics.

Human effects can be theorized. Predictions can be made. Tests can be carried out to confirm or deny the predictions. FIRST the theory EXPLAINS, THEN the PREDICTION is made, THEN the TESTING of the PREDICTION follows. Your complaint is that you don't like the way science works. Always the EXPLANATION FIRST, THEN the PREDICTION, THEN the recording of the RESULTS. The FACTS appear due to physics, not due to predictions -- either the facts are true or untrue. One must accept that FACTS VALIDATE THEORY.

Where are the articles discussing the relationship between the trend we see today and the emergence from the 'Little Ice Age' of the 1600's? Where is the evidence that the climatalogical change is outside the ranges of all known climate changes of the past? These are just examples of what is missing in the debate.


One must EXPLAIN both natural causes and human causes. There were no important human causes during the Little Ice Age. There are now. One cannot dismiss CO2 gas in the air now. It exists and is measured. There is a comprehensive theory about the presence of excess Greenhouse Gases. That theory cannot be destroyed by distractions. Only a better theory can displace the one now existing. YOU (or anybody) who wants to displace the present theory have to explain how excess CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases DO NOT affect the energy flows through the system. Since we know they do, your task is hopeless. You can't throw the Little Ice Age and the Kitchen Sink as distractions.

We know much about past climates, including about the Little Ice Age. We do not know everything there is to know yet. We have a primary duty to the present and to the future rather than to the dead past. Gases which were not present in excess during the Little Ice Age are here now. They have chemical and energy properties. They cannot be disregarded by dwelling on anything from a bygone era.

For example, if someone could predict that we were going into another little ice age, I might WANT to put more CO2 into the atmosphere.

My observation is that there are a lot of people pushing the 'global warming' button that are not being honest about their goals to enforce life-style changes they feel are 'necessary'. That's part of the reason they oppose nuclear power too, even though that has the potential to replace all fossil fuel for electricity production with zero CO2 emissions.

You have made a very significant charge of immoral corruption against the greatest workers in science today. You have damaged your own credibility with reckless charges, while you have not harmed their reputations one bit. You coupled one statement of dubious merit with another one regarding nuclear energy. There is no natural coupling. Some people want both Global warming and nuclear power gone as threats, others accept nukes without accepting CO2 mass-murder-suicide-pacts.

It would be helpful if you exercised discipline and dealt with one complex problem at a time instead of mixing two very different subjects.

According to you, I believe you have clearly stated that you are unfamiliar with Global Warming science and do not understand the threat. Therefore you express no need to do anything about CO2 gases and therefore nukes are not required to solve a problem you are not yet aware of. So what is your point in bringing up nukes at all? If there's no CO2 problem, then being against nukes has no Global Warming impact anyway, according to your logic. Why not deal with the CO2 issue on its own?

There have been 741 tornadoes in the USA since January 1st, 2006. THat is an average of 5 per day over 146 days so far this year. If that trend continues, 2006 will exceed 2004 as the record-breaking year for tornadoes. There's every reason to fear that hurricanes will bring tornadoes, as Hurricane Frances brought 125 of them and Hurricane Ivan three weeks later brought another 104 of them. There have been more tornadoes this year than more than half of the entire 12-month years in the historical record since 1950.

The tornados record is tracking the hurricane record is tracking the temperature record. They are all coupled by time and temperature and energy relationships. The energy trapped in the system is producing the tornadoes and the hurricanes as the only means to vent the heat past the blanket of insulating gases. Science knows what is happening and makes predictions. Science is predicting more tornadoes and predicting more and worse hurricanes, because science is actually describing correctly what the CO2 content means in the atmosphere in terms of effects.

Strong storms like the one down in Austin around the 12th had clouds up to 50,000 feet. That is 20,000 feet taller than regular storm cells. It takes a lot of heat to lift water vapor that high, and in fact Texas had power outages just days before from record high unseasonable temperatures. In order to blast through the insulating blanket of heat trapping gases we see violent storms of greater power than we are accustomed to seeing. That's "climate change" caused by Global Warming. The 30-year-pattern of climate has changed. The 30-year climate before that also changed. Both for the progressively worse. These are the FACTS which validate the PREDICTIONS based on the THEORY. That's how science is supposed to work, and how it actually does work.
256. Inyo
26. toukokuuta 2006 klo 06:41 (GMT)
i don't understand how global warming can push the jet stream north. isnt it driven by temperature difference rather than mean temperature? don't the cells naturally take up a certain size? I mean its not like the tropical area can move to the poles and the other zones will just get tiny and squished
Member Since: 3.09.2002 Posts: 42 Comments: 867
255. StormJunkie
26. toukokuuta 2006 klo 04:51 (GMT)
Lot's of good points bene, but you are still looking at it as a left right problem. It is not. It is a problem that, like you said, needs R&D funding for man many reasons. Nuclear is only a band aid to some extint. It is a viable clean source of fuel we can start using more of now without a lot of R&D. Atleast until we find a better solution.

The left is trying to get funding and the votes just as much as the right. I am not convicned that the left does not jump in to bed with big bussiness, such as oil, just as much as the right. We need a different breed of politicians.

Member Since: 17.08.2005 Posts: 26 Comments: 15472
254. SafeInTexas
26. toukokuuta 2006 klo 04:46 (GMT)
Found this interresting

Deserts Expanding With Jet Stream Shift
Member Since: 19.09.2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 63
253. notabene
26. toukokuuta 2006 klo 04:40 (GMT)
re: carbon....

The CEI and its industry clients are being deceptive....

There is a natural carbon cycle, shuttling carbon between soil, plants, animals, and the atmosphere.

Humans are unarguably altering this cycle by burning fossil fuels, which contain lots and lots of carbon. More carbon is released into the air than there otherwise would be without humans, therefore humans are changing the climate. QED.

That's the problem, not that carbon dioxide is dioxin. That's called a straw man.

Posted By: rwwhot at 8:00 PM CDT on May 24, 2006.
On the global warming thing, I think the continuation of the "debate" is as much from the left as the right. Many on the left can't seem to get past the idea that the Bush Administration agrees that global warming is in fact taking place.

What do they plan to do about it? The Bushies are not very good at planning anything.

As far as I can tell, none of the serious people on the right or left have any disagreement about whether it is happening. The real argument is about what is the right response. Those on the left view the issue as a vehicle on which to load all their anti-industrial, anti-development, green issues and move them through, it gets their supporters all riled up and motivated, so they keep with the tack. It makes the debate loud, and fills the political coffers of both parties.

1) The left views the issue as one affecting the common good, which the right seems to have utterly forgotten about. The left is not anti-industrial or anti-development. The key is that we know how to do these things without doing grevious damage to our country, and the oh-so-onerous legislation enacted to protect is either gutted or ignored by unscrupulous individuals who profit from skirting the law. Why is this so hard to understand? And if the greenies are giving to the left, then who's giving to the right? Polluters, because the right will spin deregulation efforts as "cutting red tape" in the name of "small government" (which look what that got you in New Orleans).

2) If anyone needs a reminder, that bleeding heart commie pinko Nixon is the one who founded the EPA. Keep in mind that the right now has a far different approach to government than 30 years ago.

The real issue we have to come to terms with, is, what steps do we need to take in order to adapt to a world that is in the process of doing a geologically hard upswing back to the natural, steady-state temperature of the Earth, ie, 22C, little if any permanent ice anywhere, different rain patterns, and a radically changed coastline.

Do we know what the global average of the earth is? Is it established fact that the last 150 years have been below average?

One of the problems that I think enviornmentalists are having is that they're not willing to take victories where they can get them.

What victories?

If you don't like CO2, we need a different source of energy.

I'm sorry, is CO2 a fuel? Since when?

Wind, hydroelectric, and solar are all quite expensive, regional, and at times unreliable (e.g., drought slows a hydroelectric plant). The answer for now is nuclear power, but of course the enviornmentalists are up in arms because it might melt down. They need to realise that the world is energy-guzzling at the moment, and until we develop fusion we need to come up with SOMETHING.

Enviros are split on nuclear. I think it's a band-aid, although breeder reactors sound promising. What needs to happen is government money now poured into the oil infrastructure needs to be diverted to R&D. A major part of the reason America won the war in the Pacific was technology; we are capable of a mobilization of intellectual and monetary capital to find a new, sustainable fuel source.

One last thing, re: China, India, and elsewhere....we cannot do anything about them until we clean us up first. That's the first step. The specifics of Kyoto can be debated, but to me it's a no-brainer to have an international standard. Once the US is able to lead by example (which we used to do), we will be able to do something useful for humanity as a whole (there's that common good thing again).
Member Since: 26.04.2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 2
252. StormJunkie
26. toukokuuta 2006 klo 04:19 (GMT)
Kernel it will happenat some point. Wether it be by choice or force, population control will happen. There is only so much this pale blue dot can do for us.

Member Since: 17.08.2005 Posts: 26 Comments: 15472
251. kerneld
26. toukokuuta 2006 klo 04:15 (GMT)
Re: Human population control. It won't work, just look at China. They have all kinds of problems with an aging population and a gender imbalance.
250. StormJunkie
26. toukokuuta 2006 klo 01:23 (GMT)
lmao SSIG.:)

Member Since: 17.08.2005 Posts: 26 Comments: 15472
249. bappit
26. toukokuuta 2006 klo 01:20 (GMT)
CalifoniaThe only cure for the ongoing mass extinctions on this planet is human population control.

Amen. I.e. you can talk about pollution visa vis technology and ecosystems all you want, but the real problem is that there are too many people. Heck, look at how difficult it is to evacuate an area. There are too many freaking people! Thomas Malthus predicted it all a long time ago of course. The world is polluted with people.
Member Since: 18.05.2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 5563
247. cucumberjack
26. toukokuuta 2006 klo 00:14 (GMT)
we are forecasted to get a couple of inches of snow with thunderstorms here in southern Oregon.

sorry if I interrupted anything, I just thought it was interesting
246. amazinwxman
26. toukokuuta 2006 klo 00:07 (GMT)
Weather I heard it was then it got messy so now it's "struggling" to form
244. Cavin Rawlins
25. toukokuuta 2006 klo 22:55 (GMT)
is a tropical cyclone developing in the Eastern pacifc?
Member Since: 24.07.2005 Posts: 407 Comments: 19076
243. rwwhot
25. toukokuuta 2006 klo 22:38 (GMT)
Have to vote G.

I gotta be, who I be.

Prefer my little half-ton to a Prius though.
Member Since: 20.09.2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 3
242. amazinwxman
25. toukokuuta 2006 klo 22:26 (GMT)
241. BenjaminFranz
25. toukokuuta 2006 klo 22:11 (GMT)
Moononite However... using Venus to demonstrate the effects of atmospheric CO2 is pretty weak. I think the planet's proximity to the sun just MIGHT have something to do with surface temperatures. Maybe.

You should checkout Why is Mars so cold, Venus so warm, and the temperature of the Earth stable?. Without greenhouse effects, Venus would have an equilibrium temperature of around 55 degrees C and a peak daytime temperature of about 190 degrees C. The actual temperature is 480 degrees C (about 100 degrees hotter than Mercury's peak daytime temperature - and Mercury is nearly twice as close to the Sun as Venus is). The difference is entirely due to the greenhouse effect.
240. CaptChas
25. toukokuuta 2006 klo 21:46 (GMT)
Question on trees and CO2.

We all have learned that green plants convert CO2 to oxygen through photosynthesis. But I read somewhere that CO2 concentration at the south pole, thousands of miles from the nearest tree, is identical to that in a tropical rain forest. Is this true?

--- CHAS
Member Since: 3.04.2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 3

Viewing: 290 - 240

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6Blog Index

Top of Page


Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Local Weather

37 °F