The Arctic as we once knew it is going, going…

By Tom Yulsman | April 25, 2017 8:31 pm

A new report finds that while continued change is ‘locked in,’ there’s still time to stabilize some trends by cutting greenhouse gas emissions

Arctic ice

A chunk of glacial ice about one story high floats in a fjord near Ny Ålesund in the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard in September of 2016. (Photograph: © Tom Yulsman)

In the past few years, I’ve heard it from many researchers: Global warming has pushed the Arctic into a completely new state. Now, a comprehensive assessment report published today confirms it:

With each additional year of data, it becomes increasingly clear that the Arctic as we know it is being replaced by a warmer, wetter, and more variable environment. This transformation has profound implications for people, resources, and ecosystems worldwide.

For the past 50 years, our emissions of greenhouse gases have warmed the Arctic at twice the rate as the world as a whole. And between 2011 and 2015, the region has been warmer “than at any time since instrumental records began in around 1900,” according to the assessment report, published by the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental group focusing on environmental protection and development.

The Arctic is still a cold place. But there has been a “widespread decline in periods of extreme cold during both winter and summer, and increases in extreme warm periods in some areas, such as northern Alaska and northeastern Russia in autumn and spring,” according to the report.

It notes that “the Arctic Ocean could be largely free of sea ice in summer as early as the late 2030s, only two decades from now.” In fact, some experts believe this could happen much sooner.

If all of this seems far away and largely irrelevant to our lives here in the middle latitudes, consider that what happens in the Arctic isn’t just staying in the Arctic. For one thing, the report says that lower-end projections of sea level rise from melting of Arctic ice sheets already seems to be underestimated.

That’s probably not exactly breaking news to residents of Miami Beach, where the city government already is raising city streets to cope with flooding. And some homeowners may soon be raising their houses.

If you don’t care much about what’s happening to Floridians, surely you care about what’s happening to your own weather. And the Arctic has been implicated in some significant changes:

Some studies have linked the loss of land and sea ice, along with changes in snow cover, to changes in Northern Hemisphere storm tracks, floods, and winter weather patterns, and have even found evidence that Arctic changes influence the onset and rainfall of Southeast Asian monsoons.

Scientists are still characterizing just how much of an impact Arctic change is having on weather patterns elsewhere. But there is not much doubt about the connection itself.

All of this can seem hopeless. And indeed, thanks to the carbon dioxide we’ve already added to the atmosphere, and the heat that has already accumulated in northern waters, the Arctic climate will continue to warm until mid-century even if we manage to drastically reduce our emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases tomorrow.

But as the report notes:

While the changes underway in the Arctic are expected to continue through at least mid-century, substantial global reductions in net greenhouse gas emissions can begin to stabilize some trends (albeit at higher levels than today) after that.

There’s still time. And thinking conservatively, we should do something. Now.

  • OWilson

    As a concerned Canadian, the news is very troubling.

    But, while the changes are unfortunately locked in, the new report does offer a glimmer of hope. We still have time to “do something” about it.

    Fortunately there are literally hundreds of proposals out there to mitigate the worst effects of this 1 degreee of Global Warming over the last 100 years.

    Here are just a few of the solutions posed by our best and brightest in Academia, as reported in the Telegraph recently:

    1. Wrapping Greenland
    Dr Jason Box, a glaciologist from Ohio State University, proposes wrapping Greenland in a blanket. By covering the valleys that form darker areas, therefore attracting the sun’s heat, he hopes to significantly slow the melting of the glacier.

    2. Hungry ocean
    Dr Brian von Herzen of the The Climate Foundation and marine biologists at the University of Hawaii and Oregon State University believe that the ocean could absorb much more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by creating plankton blooms. This is done by mixing the nutrient rich water in the colder depths of the ocean with the warmer surface water by placing huge wave-powered pumps on the swells of the North Pacific.

    3. Space sun shield
    Professor Roger Angel, who helped create the world’s largest telescope, believes the power of the sun could be reduced by placing a giant sun shield in space. The 100,000 square mile sunshade would be made up of trillions of lenses that reduce the sun’s power by two per cent.

    4. Raining forests
    Consultant environmental engineer Mark Hodges believes forests could be generated by dropping “tree bombs” from a plane. The seedlings are dropped in a wax canister full of fertiliser that explodes when it hits the ground and grows into a tree. The method has already been used to regenerate mangrove forest in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina.

    5. Orbital power plant
    Former Nasa physicist John Mankins believes the world could have a never-ending source of power and reduce carbon emissions by sending thousands of satellites into space to gather the sun’s power and then beam them down to earth as a microwave.

    6. Fixing carbon
    David Keith, 2006 Canadian Geographic Environmental Scientist of the Year, believes he can create a machine that sucks in ambient air and sprays it with sodium hydroxide and then expels it as clean air. The carbon from the air will be captured and stored underground.

    While those solutions remain to be tested, and costed, there are more concrete solutions out there, with preliminary price tags attached.

    Al Gore, via a new report from his Energy Transitions Commission (ETC), wants to “accelerate change towards low-carbon energy systems that enable robust economic development” and limit global warming. – $15,000,000,000,000.00

    World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland would have us re-design our cities without cars. – $90,000,000,000,000.00

    World Bank President World Bank President: Lets Invest in Renewables. – $40,000,000,000,000.00

    As you can, see saving the planet does not come cheap, but if we want to save the planet, we cannot afford to quibble, some hard choices must be made, now!

    • No Such Agency Knows

      “We still have time to “do something” about it.”

      Satellites seem to be most expedient.
      Block and beam energy to suit someones’ mood?

      • OWilson

        It’s the “do something about it” demands that are worrying.

        Who do you trust?

        Get rid of Trump and you are still stuck with Hillary (dodging sniper fire), Bill (Impeached, fined, disbarred) and Pelosi (pass it and we’ll find out what’s in it later) and Maxine (Putin stop invading Korea) and Bernie (free stuff for all)

        I’m old, but in this nuclear age, these senile mentally challenged lifetime politicians positively frighten me!

        Far more than another nice warm day in the sunshine! :)

  • John C

    Since we’re discussing Climate Science, not Climate Religon, no questions should be off the table. We shouldn’t treat some questions as taboo, as if they’re outside the bounds of the religious dogma and cannot be considered objectively. The public reaction / Twitter-crucifixion one gets by publically asking the “wrong” questions about climate has become a bright red litmus strip for the degree to which a quiet backwater of science – Meterology – has slid into dogmatic religiosity, but that’s a topic for another day.

    On to the questions.

    “A new report finds that while continued change is ‘locked in,’ there’s still time to stabilize some trends by cutting greenhouse gas emissions.”

    Assume the veracity of the first part of that statement, although making a 50 year prediction about the most complex quantum geophysical system on Earth might be a bit hubristic, let’s say it is true. How do we cut greenhouse emissions? That is, without causing great dislocation in the human sphere, as well as who knows how many nasty knock off effects? Windmills and solar panels will never power a modern industrial global economy. That’s just physics talking. Likewise, you can’t conserve your way to 4.0+% annual GDP. Germany, Spain…been there, didn’t work out as planned.

    Which brings us back to our Dark Master, carbon. Which China, India and other developing countries won’t give up just because it hurts Leonardo DiCaprio’s feelings. Now will they forego raising the living standards of millions of their citizens by following the sanctimonious “moral example” of already fat, rich, developed countries like the U.S. who have already burned through 150 years of carbon. NIMBY you yellow and brown people!

    We’re stuck with carbon, again because of physics and chemistry – damn you Science! Although…the carbon output of the U.S. has been substantially reduced of late by natgas from fracking. Could that be temporary compromise to help get us from dirty coal and oil to our ideal clean energy Unicorn?

    Well, it is a rational compromise as a transition source. The science says yes. It ain’t perfect but it’s better than even dirtier coal and oil. However, the Climate Religionists will have none of it. And if you publically attempt to make the factual case for fracking and natgas you are obviously a Russian troll collecting a paycheck from Rex Tillerson’s old friends.

    So, what about nuclear? That’s not carbon based at all. Haven’t you heard of Hiroshima?!?! Didn’t you see my NoNukes mushroom cloud hat at the March for Science, Ivan??

    So, we’re headed straight toward Climatepocalypse just about the time Elon Musk achieves the singularity but we’re prevented from utilizing the solutions at hand to mitigate it by scientifically ignorant eco-religionists.

    So it looks like we’re boned. If so, is there any silver lining to our oily dark cloud? Could a warmer, wetter world with more C02 be better overall for humanity? I know, it’s the Question that must not be asked, let alone objectively considered in the affirmative according to the Climate Inquisition.

    “Global crop yields have also registered spectacular growth as global temperatures have warmed. Global grain harvests have nearly tripled since 1961. As is the case in the U.S., nearly every important global crop has attained record productivity during the past five years, including the Big Three corn, rice, and wheat crops.

    During the past decade, African nations have registered record harvests in a variety of crops, including corn and rice. Moreover, the modestly warming climate is stimulating more frequent and abundant rainfall which, together with more atmospheric carbon dioxide, is greening the African continent.

    “Emerging evidence is painting a very different scenario, one in which rising temperatures could benefit millions of Africans in the driest parts of the continent,” National Geographic News reported.

    Scientists are now seeing signals that the Sahara desert and surrounding regions are greening due to increasing rainfall. If sustained, these rains could revitalize drought-ravaged regions, reclaiming them for farming communities,” National Geographic News explained. “This desert-shrinking trend is supported by climate models, which predict a return to conditions that turned the Sahara into a lush savanna some 12,000 years ago,” the article noted.”
    It appears to me that the people who most vociferously point to Science as the sure predictor of our doom will only consider Unicorn solutions that do not take into consideration the realities of physics, chemistry, economics or regional politics.
    And, since it is Taboo, there is a religious aversion to ever objectively evaluating the possible benefits of a world with more of the stuff – C02, warmth, moisture – that makes plants happy. Could a world which on the whole is more like California than Greenland maybe be better for the majority of human beings?
    Unfortunately, since the contemporary Left has as much intellectual diversity, depth and freedom of thought as the average Pakistani madrasa or Middlebury College, especially when it comes to Climatereligion, I don’t think these important scientific and social questions will be given the full, fair consideration they are due any time soon.

    • Tom Yulsman

      U.S. carbon emissions peaked in late 2007 and dropped substantially thereafter. (See: They have not returned to those levels even with robust economic growth following the crash — due to switching from coal to natural gas, significant increases in efficiency, and greater penetration of renewables. Moreover, emissions are not projected to return to 2007/2008 levels for a long time. We did this without any carbon policy. In fact, without any integrated energy policy at all. Just good old fashioned American ingenuity. So your claim that we can’t reduce carbon emissions while sustaining economic growth is specious.

      As for not being able to power an economy on 100 percxent renewables, this is patently obvious as a straw man argument. Perhaps some day maybe we will figure out how to do it. But making a difference does not require something as extreme as going 100 percent renewables.

      And no Mr. John C, my criticism of your position has nothing to do with religiosity. That too is a straw man argument. At the end of the day, you are just wrong. That’s all.

    • Dean Jackson

      “How do we cut greenhouse emissions?”

      Are you aware that Nitrogen and Oxygen are also ‘greenhouse’ gasses? Yep, their volumes are GREATER than that of Carbon Dioxide! Shocked, huh? Yeah, this fact of physics was last directed to your attention back in high school, but who remembers? So what happens to the temperature of the atmosphere when cooler Carbon Dioxide molecules are added to the warmer Nitrogen-Oxygen based atmosphere? Right…the atmosphere cools! Oops, we’ve caught ‘climate change’ agitators in a massive scientific fraud.

      • ocschwar

        By that logic, nitrogen and oxygen are more poisonous than carbon monoxide, because their volumes are greater.

        CO2 is a greenhouse gas, because its heat retention, as MEASURED experimentally for over 150 years, is greater than that of N2 or O2

      • Tom Yulsman

        Mr. Jackson: You are misinformed. Nitrogen and oxygen are transparent to the infrared energy that is radiated upward from Earth’s surface. That means they are not greenhouse gases. For a detailed explanation, please see You also seem to misunderstand how actual greenhouse gases help to retain heat in the atmosphere. It is a simple matter of physics that has been well understood and documented since the 1800s. And without this physical property, Earth would be a frozen planet. The issue is that we are enhancing the natural greenhouse effect by increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases. As a result, due to simple physics, more energy is being retained in the climate system, and thus the planet is warming.

        • Dean Jackson

          “Mr. Jackson: You are misinformed. Nitrogen and oxygen are transparent to
          the infrared energy that is radiated upward from Earth’s surface.”

          No they’re not! Nitrogen and Oxygen absorb outgoing infrared radiation, and incoming UV radiation, X-rays and Gamma Radiation. Oxygen also absorbs incoming visible light.

          • cgs

            This reply to Mr. Jackson above is really not for him, but for those folks who read his comments here and may succumb to the confusion he is sowing on this point of physics.

            The absorption of infrared radiation by a molecule changes either the rotational or vibrational state of that molecule. The molecule must have an electric dipole moment in order to interact with the electric field of the radiation.

            Neither nitrogen nor oxygen have permanent dipole moments because they are symmetric molecules. Therefore they do not typically absorb infrared radiation.

            The following quotes are from “Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles” by Robert Eisberg and Robert Resnick, a standard physics text used in undergraduate physics classes.

            If a molecule has a permanent electric dipole moment, as do all diatomic molecules that do not have identical nuclei, rotational emission and absorption spectra may be observed. The emission of radiation is due to the rotation of the electric dipole and the absorption of radiation is due to the interaction of this dipole with the electric field of the incident radiation.

            Diatomic molecules with identical nuclei,
            like O2, having no permanent electric dipole moment, do not exhibit pure rotational spectra.

            If the molecule, HCl or NaCl,
            has a permanent electric dipole moment at the equilibrium internuclear separation, it will exhibit vibrational emission and absorption spectra due to oscillations of the electric dipole moment arising from oscillation in the nuclear separation.

            Diatomic molecules with identical nuclei do not have vibrational spectra because they have no electric dipole moment at any nuclear separation.

            I would note that since this is a general quantum physics text and not a climate science text, it is not part of some grand conspiracy to hide the truth about infrared radiation absorption – unless you think that the entire field of quantum physics is a hoax.

            If a dipole moment can be induced in a symmetric molecule, then it can absorb IR radiation. In the atmosphere, collisions between molecules is one way that a dipole moment can be induced and we can observe very small amounts of absorption by nitrogen and oxygen due to collisions. That is described in the paper below from 1966.


            These small amounts of absorption play a very small role in the greenhouse effect. The following paper from 2012 calculates the global averaged effect of collision induced absorption on outgoing longwave radiation by N2 and O2 as about 15% of the effect induced by CH4. And, of course, methane’s contribution to the greenhouse effect is about 1/4 that of CO2. That would put the contribution of N2 and O2 to the greenhouse effect at about 4%.


            The authors state at the end of the paper: “Finally we would like to stress that this work concerns only the contribution of N2 and O2 to the natural greenhouse effect. In no way does it affect the importance of CH4 and other anthropogenically affected gases with respect to global climate change.”

            And further, the above percentage would only decrease as more CO2, CH4 and other greenhouse gas concentration increase and therefore assume an increasingly larger share of the greenhouse effect.

            So don’t be fooled. When it comes to the greenhouse effect, CO2, CH4 and other gases are the important ones to be concerned about – both now and in the future.

          • Dean Jackson

            “This reply to Mr. Jackson above is really not for him, but for those
            folks who read his comments here and may succumb to the confusion he is sowing on this point of physics.”

            There’s no confusion with the physical facts regarding the heat capacity of Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen and Oxygen at 1 atmosphere/70F…

            One pound of Carbon Dioxide has a volume of 8.7 cubic feet,

            Oxygen is at 12.1 cubic feet.

            Nitrogen is at 13.8 cubic feet

            Why would anyone be confused?

            “Neither nitrogen nor oxygen have permanent dipole moments because they are symmetric molecules. Therefore they do not typically absorb infrared radiation.”

            In fact, Nitrogen and oxygen absorb infrared radiation, gamma rays, x-rays, uv radiation, and visible light for oxygen. And all gasses also absorb thermal and latent energy from the Earth’s surface. Radiation absorption is but one means by which atmospheric gasses obtain their heat.

          • Tom Yulsman

            Thank you CGS for that in-depth and extended explanation, and for providing the documentation as well. That’s awesome. And you are right that it will make no difference to Mr. Jackson, who appears to be from an alternate universe with different physics. Or perhaps he is from the new universe we find ourselves in — where anything you want to believe is true. Just because. (Often these days, I want out…)

          • cgs

            Thanks Tom. Even I, though, wasn’t careful in my reply – there are many pitfalls when trying to discuss science in a comments section.

            My figure of 4% above was only relative to CO2, not the total of all greenhouse gases, as I first incorrectly stated. When you look at the contribution of N2 and O2 relative to all GHGs it drops to below 1%, which makes a lot more sense.

            I haven’t run across Mr. Jackson for a long, long time. We did have an extended back and forth a few years ago. He’s definitely not worth the time, since, you’re right, you can’t argue with someone from an alternate reality.

            With some folks you come to realize that your not arguing against them anymore, but arguing for everyone else.

          • Dean Jackson

            “Thanks Tom. Even I, though, wasn’t careful in my reply – there are many pitfalls when trying to discuss science in a comments section.”

            Yeah…like the pitfall of not knowing that a gas’ volume size is due to its heat(!), which informs us of Nitrogen and Oxygen’s warmer qualities than that of Carbon Dioxide. Once again…

            Let’s again take a look at the actual physics of Nitrogen, Oxygen and
            Carbon Dioxide on planet Earth, where volume determines heat capacity of the gas,,,

            Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen and Oxygen at 1 atmosphere/70F…

            One pound of Carbon Dioxide has a volume of 8.7 cubic feet,

            Oxygen is at 12.1 cubic feet.

            Nitrogen is at 13.8 cubic feet

          • Dean Jackson

            I’m on planet Earth where the volume of Carbon Dioxide, volume
            determined by temperature and pressure, is one-third less than either Nitrogen or Oxygen, so what planet are you from, Mod?

            Let’s again take a look at the actual physics of Nitrogen, Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide on planet Earth, where volume determines heat capacity of the gas (heat expands a gas molecule, hence the greater heat for Nitrogen and Oxygen),,,

            Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen and Oxygen at 1 atmosphere/70F…

            One pound of Carbon Dioxide has a volume of 8.7 cubic feet,

            Oxygen is at 12.1 cubic feet.

            Nitrogen is at 13.8 cubic feet

            What’s the physics on your planet, Mod?

            By the way, you never responded to the fraud you posted requiring my correction. You said, “Mr. Jackson: You are misinformed. Nitrogen and oxygen are transparent to the infrared energy that is radiated upward from Earth’s surface.” My reply, “No they’re not! Nitrogen and Oxygen absorb outgoing infrared radiation, and incoming UV radiation, X-rays and Gamma Radiation. Oxygen also absorbs incoming visible light.” Why did you commit scientific fraud? That’s a rhetorical question, Mod. I know why!

          • No Such Agency Knows

            Need to also include dimers, trimers — all the way
            to various droplet combinations. How to do that?
            As a try, someone will have to build a giant centrifuge.

          • Dean Jackson

            “Need to also include dimers, trimers — all the way
            to various droplet combinations.”

            Oxygen, Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide dimers and trimers are so rare and momentary in existence, they’re consigned as the trace gasses 04, N4 or CO2(2) and not even mentioned. And since Carbon Dioxide is a COOLING molecule in Earth’s atmosphere, it doesn’t give rise to more water vapor in the atmosphere, it gives LESS water vapor in the atmosphere.

          • No Such Agency Knows

            “Carbon Dioxide is a COOLING molecule in Earth’s atmosphere” -+ ?

            “CO2 Is Not Causing Global Warming by Dr. Tim Ball”

            “the global average infrared optical thickness turned
            out to be 1.87, agreeing with theoretical expectations.”

          • Dean Jackson

            Increasing Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere, Carbon Dioxide being a cooling molecule per its one-third lower volume than the warmer – higher volume – Nitrogen and Oxygen molecules, proportionately decreases the amount of infrared radiation water vapor (the main absorption agent of infrared radiation) can absorb because there is now less water vapor due to cooling, thereby maintaining the 1.87 infrared optical thickness [of the atmosphere] value.

            As Miklos Zigoni notes, “During the 61-year period, in
            correspondence with the rise in CO2 concentration, the global average
            absolute humidity diminished about 1 per cent. This decrease in absolute
            humidity has exactly countered all of the warming effect that our CO2
            emissions have had since 1948.” This is empirical evidence that
            Miskolczi’s theory is correct.

  • Dean Jackson

    All Atmospheric Gasses Absorb Solar Radiation

    atmospheric gasses absorb infrared radiation (IR), including Oxygen and
    Nitrogen (both gasses constituting greater than 99% of the atmosphere’s

    to their symmetry, homonuclear diatomic molecules like N2 and O2 do not
    exhibit a static electric dipole moment, such as H2O, nor is there the
    possibility to induce vibrationally a dipole moment, as in the case of
    CO2. Thus, there are no strong infrared absorption bands due to dipole
    transitions as in the case of the major greenhouse gases. However, as
    discovered by Crawford et al. [1949], collision-induced absorption leads
    to weak absorption features of N2 and O2 in the infrared [e.g.,
    Hartmann et al., 2008].”

    peer reviewed paper affirms the non-negligible roles that Oxygen and
    Nitrogen play, in the aggregate, in heating the atmosphere…

    work challenges a common perception on the negligible role of O2 and N2
    as natural greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere compared to
    species like CH4 or N2O. It is in fact the large abundance of oxygen and
    nitrogen which compensates for their only weak interaction with
    infrared radiation through collision-induced absorption bands.

    to the atmospheric concentration of atmospheric N2 (O2) that is about
    2000 (550) times higher than that of CO2 and about 4.4 X 105 (1.2 X 105)
    times more abundant than CH4, even the weak infrared absorption of N2
    (O2) can become radiatively important.”

    the bold faced lies put out by politically co-opted climate scientists,
    where Oxygen and Nitrogen are said to absorb zero IR.

    NASA, And ‘Educational’ Organizations, Lies In Vivid Black And White

    have already learned that Earth’s atmosphere is composed primarily of
    nitrogen and oxygen. These gases are transparent to incoming solar
    radiation. They are also transparent to outgoing infrared radiation,
    which means that they do not absorb or emit solar or infrared radiation.”

    has been understood since the 19th century that some gases absorb
    infrared radiation (IR) that is emitted by the planet, slowing the rate
    at which the planet can cool and warming the surface. These so-called
    greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide and water vapor, as well as
    ozone and methane among others. Note, however, that the bulk of the
    atmosphere is made up of nitrogen and oxygen molecules which don’t
    absorb IR at all.”

    of the gas in the atmosphere is nitrogen and oxygen – both of which are
    molecules made of two atoms. The atoms in these molecules are bound
    together tightly and unable to vibrate, so they cannot absorb heat [sic]
    and contribute to the greenhouse effect.”

    and oxygen don’t absorb infrared energy in our atmosphere because their
    molecules – composed of two identical atoms – don’t vibrate or rotate
    at infrared frequencies.”

    presence of complicated molecules in the earth’s atmosphere impedes the
    earth’s ability to radiate thermal energy into space. By complicated
    molecules, I mean ones that have vibrations that allow them to absorb
    infrared light. The most abundant molecules in our atmosphere, nitrogen
    and oxygen, don’t do that.”

    now see that all gasses in the atmosphere absorb IR to varying degrees,
    not simply the ‘greenhouse gasses’ such as Carbon Dioxide or Methane.
    In fact, the term ‘greenhouse gas’ is a misnomer—all atmospheric gasses
    are ‘greenhouse gasses’. In fact Nitrogen and Oxygen also absorb gamma rays, X-rays, and UV rays. Oxygen also absorbs visible light!

    do institutions such as NASA lie regarding Nitrogen and Oxygen’s
    ability to absorb IR? Because in learning the true IR absorption
    qualities of Nitrogen and Oxygen, those interested would be curious
    about Nitrogen and Oxygen and perform more research into those two
    molecules, learning that they are, in fact, warmer than Carbon Dioxide.

    Carbon Dioxide Has Less Volume Than Either Nitrogen and Oxygen, Therefore Carbon Dioxide Is Cooler

    important than a gas’ IR absorption capabilities is an atmosphere gas
    molecule’s volume. One pound of Carbon Dioxide has a volume of 8.7 cubic
    feet, smaller than Nitrogen at 13.8 cubic feet, and Oxygen at 12.1
    cubic feet. With a smaller volume than either Nitrogen and Oxygen,
    Carbon Dioxide can only possess less heat than Nitrogen and Oxygen.

    the atmosphere is a Nitrogen-Oxygen based atmosphere, representing over
    99% of the atmosphere’s gasses, adding Carbon Dioxide to the atmosphere
    cools the Nitrogen-Oxygen based atmosphere, as demonstrated in
    experimental designs conducted by Professor Gert Venter, Agricultural
    Engineering, University of Pretoria: “You
    know, that’s why all I can do is laugh when these global warming
    monkeys tell me that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is not, and I have
    live, precise experimental situations in over 30 sites around the world
    that prove that it is not. These guys create a model in their computers,
    based on arbitrary assumptions, and then ignore all the experimental
    evidence to the contrary. My experiments show that INCREASING
    TEMPERATURE in my agricultural environments.”

    With Carbon Dioxide A Cooling Molecule In Earth’s Atmosphere, Then What Is Warming The Atmosphere?

    The heat obtained by both Nitrogen and Oxygen comes from thermals and latent heat
    from the surface, heat from man-made structures on the ground, and the
    heat produced by incoming radiation absorbed directly by the atmosphere,
    not solely from the absorption of outgoing IR. The warmth that blankets
    us each day is due to Nitrogen and Oxygen, not the puny amounts of the
    trace gas Carbon Dioxide, nor any of the other trace gasses.

    man-made structures on the ground, interestingly NASA’s ‘earth’s energy
    budget’ illustration fails to provide the data on the amount of solar
    radiation absorbed by those structures, and it is the massive growth of
    urban sprawl the last sixty years that accounts for the atmosphere’s
    warming, a warming that is being tempered by increasing amounts of
    Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.

  • No Such Agency Knows

    All atmospheres self-adjust to warm the surface.
    CO2 warming is a globalist scam to tax everyone.

  • Barry

    What happened to the mile thick glacier that was above my house by Lake Michigan? What caused the younger dryas, or 8.2K event? What do the Milankovitch cycles have to do with climate change? Magnetic polar shift? Sub oceanic plates ridges and hot spots? Feedback loops from trapped methane in ocean sediments being released by warmer ocean currents?

    We tend to not see the full picture, more than just what is in our atmosphere causing warming, or sea surface temps. Yes carbon has an effect but it also is not the real and total cause of climate change. See graph from NOAA. Co2 corresponds with temp. Does not mean it causes the temp rise. We all need to take care of the environment for the future, air, water, land use, ecology, wildlife. That is what we should be keying on instead of our carbon footprint causing locked in warming. Which the warming has been happening without our carbon footprints for 10,000 of thousands of years to melt those mile thick glaciers, has been changing the planet continuously.

    Large ancient civilizations collapsed which lived in arid habitable zones which are not as habitable due to lack of water, from climate change that has happened already, hundreds and thousands of years ago. Nazca, Egypt Sahara desert expanding (pyramids).

  • FSinibaldi

    En el canto.

    Siento radiante
    un canto y
    una rima pasar
    donde el sueño
    describe la noche
    y una tierna

    Francesco Sinibaldi



ImaGeo is a visual blog focusing on the intersection of imagery, imagination and Earth. It focuses on spectacular visuals related to the science of our planet, with an emphasis (although not an exclusive one) on the unfolding Anthropocene Epoch.

About Tom Yulsman

Tom Yulsman is Director of the Center for Environmental Journalism and a Professor of Journalism at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He also continues to work as a science and environmental journalist with more than 30 years of experience producing content for major publications. His work has appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, Audubon, Climate Central, Columbia Journalism Review, Discover, Nieman Reports, and many other publications. He has held a variety of editorial positions over the years, including a stint as editor-in-chief of Earth magazine. Yulsman has written one book: Origins: the Quest for Our Cosmic Roots, published by the Institute of Physics in 2003.


See More


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar