Joe and Erik said: I mean, what's the harm of a gas in the atmosphere in such minute, trace amounts -- a gas that is absolutely essential to plants? I just don't see something at such small concentrations causing a climate shift. How do you explain the supposedly vast impact of something that amounts to only 387 parts per million? How does an increase in that tiny level just block out reflected sunlight so effectively that all ice on Earth melts? It boggles my mind, anyway. Thanks, Joe --- On Wed, 11/25/09, erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net <erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net> wrote: From: erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net <erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] OT - ClimateGate To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Wednesday, November 25, 2009, 4:19 PM CO2 is a poison to humans and a waste product. Increase CO2 causes increased respiration until it becomes to high then it becomes a narcotic and you stop breathing. This can happen with pretty very small increases in blood CO2 (in chronic disease), I have witnessed this many times. I don't know how to answer you Joe, greenhouse gasses are not visible. How does our atmosphere and magnetosphere protect us from solar radiation? We can't see it so it clearly can have no effect. Yet it does. A greenhouse traps radiation to make it warmer than the outside temperature it has nothing to do with CO2, that remains the same in and out of the greenhouse. Greenhouse gases have always referred to gases that hinder the infrared radiation from radiating back into space. These gases absorb the long wave lengths, I would be interested in a source that refutes that. It was taught in my Biology classes. BTW, The perceived economics are not a scientific argument. Al Gore has not made hundreds of millions of dollars on this. The Economic motive is much bigger for the oil and gas industry, who ironically would likely not see a big drop in demand, just not big increases. Joe, It may boggle your mind that such small amounts of CO2 can cause such a climate shift as we are discussing. I too find it difficult to understand all the science involved in this issue. When I get to that point, I have to make a decision as who to trust. To me it simply comes down to believing in science. I believe in science. I know that when I turn the light switch on, I can see in the dark. I know when I turn the key in my car ignition, my internal combustion engine will start. When I look up in the sky through my telescope I know that great scientific minds before me made this possible. All of these great and wonderful things that make our life as good as it is are only due to the science and scientists that have made it possible. Science is the only empirical "religion". Science for me is the only entity that my mind and senses can believe in. Science makes everything in our lives possible. That being said, when it comes to global warming science, I believe the scientists from NOAA and NASA and other global science institutions. Why would I not believe in the interpretations of these scientists using their own collected data from satellites and data gathering instruments designed by said scientists? They are the only ones that can truly and correctly interpret this data. Not the Petroleum Institute, not Sarah Palin... not the free enterprisers. The only bad science coming from NOAA and NASA is when the Bush administration edited out the true affects of global warming from numerous reports released to the public. If you do not believe the global warming science released from NOAA and NASA, why would you believe in any science at all? Jon