CO2 is good for you - definitely NOT a pollutant.

It is a tragedy that there are a generation of children who have been forced fed false science; who have been taught that carbon (dioxide) is a pollutant.

So, in this post we are going to dispel some carbon dioxide mis-education.

Is atmospheric CO2 causing runaway warming?

This century atmospheric CO2 has risen from 369.14 in January 2000  to 398.72 in March 2014

In this time, as the (UN)Skeptical Pseudo-Science trend calculator shows (fig below), there has been no significant change in global temperature.

So atmospheric CO2 has risen by 8% whilst temperatures have fallen very slightly. With this in mind, why do we get statements like this:
Global Warming is mainly the result of CO2 levels rising in the Earth's atmosphere. Both atmospheric CO2 and climate change are accelerating. Climate Scientists say that we have years, not decades, to stabilize CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
The source of this incorrect alarmist statement is the site CO2 Now. (Also the source for the above graph of CO2.) But CO2 Now is not alone in pushing a false scare re (peer-reviewed) innocent CO2.

CO2 Greening the Planet

CO2 is plant food. We know that the increase in CO2 is greening the planet. This has been reported in peer reviewed journals Biogeosciences; Remote Sensing 5; the American Geophysical Union; Geophysical Research Letters and we also learn that Too Little Carbon Dioxide will destroy the Earth.

In a recent discussion, a mis-educated young person asked:
How can CO2 be greening the planet when there are droughts all around the world? 
Well, there are two flaws in this questions.

  1. The IPCC has ruled out CO2 induced climate change causing extreme weather. 
  2. Also
More CO2 Means Less Water Stress for Plants
Another major benefit of atmospheric CO2 enrichment is that plants exposed to elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 generally do not open their leaf stomatal pores - through which they take in carbon dioxide and give off water vapor - as wide as they do at lower CO2 concentrations.  In addition, they tend to produce less of these pores per unit area of leaf surface at higher levels of atmospheric CO2.  Both of these changes tend to reduce most plants' rates of water loss by transpiration; and the amount of carbon they gain per unit of water lost - or water-use efficiency - therefore typically rises, greatly increasing their ability to withstand drought. 
Logarithmic Effect of CO2

Even if you agree that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes (some) warming, scientific studies tell us that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic and so any future CO2 additions will have virtually no heating effect:

From Taxing Air: (P132)
Because it is a greenhouse gas, more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, other things being equal, does cause warming. 
But other things are far from equal, two important considerations being, first, that the extra warming diminishes in magnitude rapidly (logarithmically) as carbon dioxide increases....
Model projection of the incremental increases in radiative heat trapped in the lower atmosphere (rather than lost to space) by injections of carbon dioxide in 20 ppm increments (MODTRAN atmospheric model, University of Chicago). Calculations are in terms of watts/ m2 of radiant heat increase (left hand axis scale).Translating each increment of heat trapped in the atmosphere into degrees Celsius depends upon the assumed sensitivity of the climate system, which remains controversial (see Fig. 17, p.105).The approximate temperature bar (top right) is based upon the IPCC’s estimated sensitivity of 3.3ÂșC for a doubling of carbon dioxide. Note that this temperature increase, whatever its precise value, is a constant that applies to all doublings of carbon dioxide, for example from 140 to 280 ppm, 280 to 560 ppm and 560 to 1120 ppm. 
Saturated Greenhouse Effect.

Physicist Dr Ferenc Miskolczi's peer reviewed paper theorises that a saturated greenhouse effect exists and further additions of greenhouses gasses will not cause more warming. This has been supported by another paper by Isaac and Wijngaarden published in the Journal of Climate. (Hockeyshtick)

No Support for the Falsified AGW Hypothesis.

Science has never shown any evidence, any peer reviewed paper, not even a hint of support for the AGW hoax. As Einstein said: (LINK)
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” 
Where does that leave us?

CO2 is good for you and innocent of all charges.

- - - - - - - - - -

The following summarizes levels of CO2 under various conditions: 
40,000 ppm: The exhaled breath of normal, healthy people.
8,000 ppm: CO2 standard for submarines
2,500 ppm: CO2 level in a small hot crowded bar in the city
2,000 ppm: The point at which my CO2 meter squawks by playing Fur Elise
1,000 to 2,000 ppm: Historical norms for the earth’s atmosphere over the past 550 million years
1,000 to 2,000 ppm: The level of CO2 at which plant growers like to keep their greenhouses
1,000 ppm: Average level in a lecture hall filled with students
600 ppm: CO2 level in my office with me and my husband in it
490 ppm: CO2 level in my office working alone
390 ppm: Current average outdoor level of CO2 in the air
280 ppm: Pre-industrial levels in the air, on the edge of "CO2 famine" for plants
150 ppm: The point below which most plants die of CO2 starvation
(all of these data vary a little with size of the space, ventilation, wind, and the like)


  1. Definitely not a pollutant. Even the fraudulent UN IPCC doesn't classify CO2 as a pollutant:
    Pages 1-4, here:
    Quotes UN IPCC on page 4.


  2. Im not sure that the pre industrial levels are correct.
    According to one source pre-industrial levels were higher than today.
    Levels are not determined by human activity but I would logically surmise due to geothermal and to some extent solar output. I will provide a link as soon as I rediscover it!


Post a Comment

All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!