The Greenhouse Effect, a positive look.

Imagine that you are in a greenhouse. Lush, lively plants are everywhere. That greenhouse is providing shelter from the cold. This warmth allows for more plant life to grow and live longer. These growing and longer living plants means more carbon dioxide absorbing, oxygen releasing and medicine providing vegetation. Greenhouses with all of their vegetation contain more oxygen than the earth on scale. Increased plant life means increased sustenance (O2 and food) for an ever increasing human and animal population.

More warmth means more moisture to evaporate, turning to rain which saturates and invigorates the expanding life on the earth. These rain storms can churn up the ocean and atmosphere creating what are known as carbon dioxide sinks (they turn CO2 into oxygen). They also create a cooling effect. All of these activities help to balance the effects of over warming and carbon dioxide emission. Atmospheric oxygen concentrations have not decreased have they? Over many, many years, with fluxuation, nature will keep these CO2 and Oxygen levels in balance.

Large hurricanes usually peak at a certain strength. They can become wobbly, unstable and collapse if too powerful. As hurricanes form, they may become sheared apart from winds caused by the flow and currents of the ocean and air. This was apparent in the non-existant hurricane season of 2006. We've seen Catagory 5's before and we will continue to see them. How many more hurricanes, droughts and animal deaths from global warming is quite debatable. Also, a growing populous means that comparable storms from 200 years ago will do more damge today, just for the fact that there is more property and lives to be effected.

As snow recedes, plant life grows. How much will ocean levels rise from melting glaciers? The IPCC report declared that ocean levels will probably only rise 18 inches. This is a direct refutiation of Al Gores dire 20 foot prediction. This is not nuance. Doesn't this conflict in conclusion spike your curiousity or suspicion? 18 inches is certainly not a cause for an immediate, drastic, costly change to industrialization. Technology will evolve over time. So enjoy the warmth, take a deep-oxygen filled breath, and relax. The earth is providing our growing population with life!

Think about it. Global warming may not be as bad as you think. The earth is resiliant and will continue to go through cycles. Global cooling on the other hand would destroy an ever increasing population.

I guess every religion has to have at least one special day, and the members of the church of the sacred eviro-wackos are no different! Tell me, what did the climate change fairy leave under your pillow? A swirly light bulb? A copy of Ozone Man's movie? A "have you hugged your tree today?" bumper sticker? Some of you people really do need to get a life (and for starters, a real job, too).

We celebrated by burning all of the excess oil, used tires, and old gas I had been storing for recycling whenever I got around to it. Based upon the comments I heard on the news, it sounded like those leftover materials are really bad for the environment, so I figured we might as well get rid it once and for all, so it could do more harm just sitting in my shed. Surprised to find out how much lumber it took to get the fire going though. And all that black smoke, whew.

What...burning is bad? D'OH.

And, by the way, I would like to thank Sheryl Crowacle for informing me that I now have a lifetime supply of TP and that by not using much, I too, can save the planet.

Just to give you another example of the insanity among these people:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267783,00.html

And yes it is from Fox News. I don't think the Comedy Broadcasting System would give us a story like this because of their refusal to give the other side of this non-story.

I quite frankly think that the no-talent singer Sheryl Crow should use poison ivy during her next visit, and then she can tell us what happens!

Rich, if you changed the first sentence of your post to "The Greenhouse Effect, a delusionist outlook," you'd have a very well-written, accurate piece.

Oiz, the only 'religion' present here is the one you're a part of -- those who worship in the Church Of Hannity.

Happy Earth Day!

laura,

sure like looking at the picture of the earth with all the complexities of weather, clouds, ice, and land surrounded by dark frigid space in one frame...too bad you cannot see the sun (100 earth sizes, 93,000,000 miles in the foreground) that drives it all, nevertheless, in my opinion it says a thousand words...earth day, the greenest of holidays yet the earth is blue...why is it blue? 79% of it is covered in water...i'm sure global warming will be the "hot topic" of choice this year during earth day...the point is: what would you expect the most important factor governing earth's climate? .0004% co2 or 99% water vapor? by the way, those blue oceans are undersaturated and are absorbing co2...animals use the co2 to make shells...the shells made of CaCo3 and other precipitating calcium carbonate in the blue oceans sink to the bottom and form rocks called limestone "locking up" co2...i think its ironic being blue, prognosticating doom, on green earth day, when we ought to be celebrating how "COOOOOL" blue really is....have a nice day and thanks for the warming photo!!! it really is cool :)

I guess every religion has to have at least one special day, and the members of the church of the sacred eviro-wackos are no different! Tell me, what did the climate change fairy leave under your pillow? A swirly light bulb? A copy of Ozone Man's movie? A "have you hugged your tree today?" bumper sticker? Some of you people really do need to get a life (and for starters, a real job, too).

Laura, on another thread, you refused to publish a comment from me regarding the role of Inhofe's religion in his policy-making while he chaired the Senate Committee on the Environment.

You objected to my comparison of Inhofe's published Christian fundamentalist beliefs to those of an Islamic fundamentalist, each intending to create a theocracy.

You cited the following policy:
"[your contribution] violates AccuWeather.com's terms of usage, specifically under the first bullet-point under section 9 - "racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any person for any reason."

It seems to me that Oiznop's published comment is far more offensive than anything I offered. I'm therefore surprised and disappointed in your decision to publish his and exclude mine.

Here's a conundrum: The Federal Goverment begins mandating more ethanol production. But, the US farmer cannot begin to meet etahanol demands, which spur nations like Brazil and Indonesia to clear cut tropical rain forests in order to plant more corn, sugar or palm trees (to extract palm oil). In the meantime everything from meat to milk is sky-rocketing in prices as farmers must now compete with ethanol producers for corn. The rain forests which absorb large quantitues of CO2 as well as provide a hinge in our global circulation pattern, will be destroyed in order to provide at best 5-8% of our fuel needs. Changes in the albedo of the landscape as these rainforests are destroyed will only exasperate things.

Somehow, none of this makes any sense.

It's amazing that these people can't apprehend that the earth has a carbon balance and that what we add to it in terms of carbon is an excess. An excess of anything is never good.

Going back in time I remember Earth Day 1975
Instead of global warming we were faced with Global cooling and the earth as we know it would not exist in 30 years unless we make some drastic changes.This was according to US World Report and the New York Times. Not sure what chances we made but I like it. I agree with Rich The earth is resiliant I can survive in a warming environment.

The first Earth Day was centered around adjusting to the oncoming ice age - nuclear winter, etc. Now the pendulum has swung to the other side of the lunatic fringe.

It would be nice if we could focus on the excellent progress we have made cleaning up our air over the last 40 years, instead of the imagined impending doom. The power of positive thinking is lost on the current generation.

Rich, good writing! Very logical. Makes this present natural period of warming sound all the more inviting.
Sammy k, ditto.

Patrick,

The air is cleaner today thanks to government regulations that your side fought tooth and nail against during the 60s and 70s, saying they'd cripple the economy.

Kinda like what's going on now with CO2.

Mark,

The EPA was established by President Nixon.

If you would quit frothing so much about right-wing boogeymen and talk solutions, it might improved your credibility a tad.

Try again.

Dave

Mark/Patrick:

Hate to rehash an oldie but apparent goodie but, clean air regulations and CO2 concentrations are kinda like the apple and brick analogy.

Mark:

And to say that the "other side" fought tooth and nail against is a bit far fetched. They were against draconian regs that would potentially yield little additional results beyond what was already being done. Why would it be in the interest of even, dare I say, air pollution skeptics (insert conservatives or republicans here) to have poor quality air? And, quite frankly, the regs have hurt, and continue to affect, the overall economy. I would guess that 10% to 20% of our electric bills go towards the installation and upgrading of scrubbers etc. at power plants.

I think air pollution generally constitutes a more quantifiable and indentifiable cause and affect process since many of the regulated compounds do not exist in nature. By the
AGW proponents own admission, present CO2 concentrations are primarily the work of nature by a 2 to 1 ratio or so. So I ask everyone, what if the emissions by man are rounded to the high side and natural emissions are rounded to the low side? What if that is reversed? Seems to me that making up numbers to support your "cause", on either side of the topic, could be easily accomplished. I mean even those of us on this site (greatly more informed I might add), and including ACCUWEATHER personnel (people better able to understand the experiments and ramifications of the results), are taking these numbers at face value.

It seems to me that Oiznop's published comment is far more offensive than anything I offered. I'm therefore surprised and disappointed in your decision to publish his and exclude mine.

REPLY: Why, oh why do you say this, Brookline?? How is what I said offensive? Is it because I speak the truth? Because you can't take a little jab here and there? Some of you PC guys really amaze me, with your attempts to quash any free speech. You can dish out the insults on those who disagree with you, but you can't take a harmless comment like saying "Global Warming is a religion" which it has become. You take it as a blasphemy. Which again, just goes to prove the silliness of this whole issue. Oh, by the way, I am interested in what it was that was not posted on here that you wrote and are now crying the blues about. Please elaborate, as I look forward to what the big stink is all about.

Mark,
To be fair conservatives argued that these regulations would not be cheap, and by no means are they inexpensive as they add up to almost $2 trillion dollars annually to the cost of doing buisness.

The Clean Air Act of 1975 mandated catalytic converters. The reason? Acid Rain. Cars were exhausting too much sulfur dioxide into the air. Catalytic converters convert the sulfur exhausts into carbon dioxide. The CAFE standards also put into effect during the 70s mandated better fuel efficiencies -meaning a driver could drive more at less fuel consumption. The results, more people driving, more autos emitting CO2. Autos contribute about 20% of CO2 concentrations -all thanks to the federal goverment.

The quickest way to cut down on CO2 concentrations in the US is for the goverment to mandate nuclear power for all of its utilities (according to the IPCC coal and oil powered utilities account for over 60% of all man-made GHG). The goverment could subsidize a portion of the costs to aid in the migration. Yet, not one greenie has ever advocated this. AGW has nothing to do with "saving the planet", and everthing to do with politics.

>The air is cleaner today thanks to government regulations that your side fought tooth and nail against during the 60s and 70s, saying they'd cripple the economy.

Kinda like what's going on now with CO2.

The big difference though Mark is that pollution in the 60's and 70's could pretty easily be proven to be a terrible thing and quite rightly industry was forced to clean up it's act. Despite what the Supreme Court decided, CO2 is NOT a pollutant and to this day cannot be proven to be responsible for the current warming trend. There are hypotheses and dubious climate models, but no proof whatsoever.
Cars and industry can and will become even cleaner, but CO2 reduction as a stand-alone goal should never be pursued just on theory. Especially by political means.

The air is cleaner today thanks to government regulations that your side fought tooth and nail against during the 60s and 70s, saying they'd cripple the economy.

REPLY: Yeah, and they did cripple the economy. Once again, Mark, you spew your falsehoods without thinking things through. Government regulations always will have an affect on the economy, and what happened in the 1960s and 70s was no different. Here in Pittsburgh, a once triving steel town in the 1930s 40s and 50s, the once proud steel industry took a major hit due to your tree hugging "regulations" thus forcing many a heavy indstry worker into unemployment. Heavy industry and the local economy will never be what it once was as a result. But you guys on the political left tried to attribute that to corporate greed (and had many a steel worker around here believing that tripe too), when in reality, the corporations did what they had to do to survive under this type of business climate. Thanks to your touchy feely regulations, big govenrment (on the local, state and federal levels) higher taxes, and impossible demands from the unions. Those are the things that crippled the steel industry around here. Oh and also, I suppose those long lines at the gas pumps in the 70's had absolutely nothing to do with your regulations either, huh? Mark, you really need to think and know your history before you speak and say stuff like the evironmental regulations of the 60's and 70's didn't hurt anyone. That is just plain wrong, and proves that people like you are living in a dream world.

The quickest way to cut down on CO2 concentrations in the US is for the goverment to mandate nuclear power for all of its utilities (according to the IPCC coal and oil powered utilities account for over 60% of all man-made GHG). The goverment could subsidize a portion of the costs to aid in the migration. Yet, not one greenie has ever advocated this.

REPLY: And they never will, JP. I said it before and I will say it again. This is the same crowd that burst a blood vessel when Three Mile Island happended in 1979. Remember "Hell No, We Won't Glow" and "No Nukes is Good Nukes?" There is just no satisfying these people. How can anyone take them seriously?

Why, oh why do you say this, Brookline?? How is what I said offensive? Is it because I speak the truth? (remainder of rant deleted)

Not at all, Oiznop -- I think that Laura should have published my comments. I think the best answer to "offensive" speech is more, not less speech. I find your commentary filled with lies, distortions, half-truths, innuendo, and various other faults. I think the best antidote to such crappola is more commentary that exposes such material for what it is.

My objection is to Laura's decision to suppress my commentary. I argue, again, that by the standard Laura applied -- I believe in error -- your commentary should have also been suppressed. I therefore think that her best editorial policy is to publish both.

At the same time, Laura is not a journalist and by and large does as good a job as any other editor. Referees, even very good ones, sometimes miss a call. I'm guessing that Laura is learning, on the job and in the spotlight, a LOT more about editing, publishing, and journalism than she EVER dreamed she'd be doing.

wow, great historical context posts...as an impartial reader, i would conclude "the debate is over"...seems to me the deniers know what they are talking about

The funny thing is how not to many years ago Earth Day was the "hole in the ozone" holiday. Back then, each and every human being was going to die of skin cancer. Now......the hole is basically gone, so I guess the doomsdayers needed to find something else to freighten the world.

You're talking about economy on a local scale, Oiz. I'm talking about it on a macro scale. We've instituted all these regulations and our economy today is fine. Regulations may result in increased costs for a couple of years as corporations make the transition, but then everything returns to normal again once the market adapts. It's amazing how so-called supporters of the free market have such a low opinion of its resiliency. You guys think it's so fragile that any regulation will result in the second coming of the Great Depression. I believe it's resilient and adapt to changing conditions.

Let's also understand that unregulated capitalism is just as flawed of a system as Communism is. Most free-market worshippers will even tell you that. Captialism NEEDS oversight, it NEEDS structure and it needs some governance in order to be succesful. Too much is bad, but too little is equally bad.

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/873aae7bf86c0110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

The above URL is an article online from Popular Science (I know it is not peer reviewed but must be true since Science is in the title) concerning how to convert our garbage into an energy source, generate electricy for free to the power grid, reduc