If CO2 Were Pink


I painted 39 out of 100,000 people in the University of Michigan football stadium pink – to represent the atmospheric concentration of CO2. Can you find them?

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/if-co2were-pink/

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to If CO2 Were Pink

  1. Scott says:

    very, very, very pale pink

    ROAR!

    He got it exactly backwards. The reason I don’t think that CO2 is such a serious issue is the opposite – it was already absorbing most of the outgoing radiation in its absorbance regions at 280 ppm…so an extra 100+ ppm doesn’t matter!

    Also, the whole 390 ppm being a trace gas argument is weak too. What if it was 390 ppm H2S? SF6? UF6? HCN?

    -Scott

    • Norbert says:

      –Exactly right, Scott.

      That small amount of CO2 is *unbelievably* critical to life on the planet, without it we’d freeze. Without it, plant life would die.

      It continues to completely astound me how much of a hash the ‘climate change’ ‘science’ community has made out of connecting changes in CO2 to potential changes in climate. Basically: create computer model with ginormous amounts of positive feedback and twiddle the knobs until you get a press worth result. Totally unfalsifiable, totally unscientific, totally without merit.

      However to trivialize the importance of the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere is just ignorant as hell.

  2. Mike Bromley says:

    Fascinating, the industry developing on the idea that something could happen maybe, perhaps by 2050, or even more so by 2100. What is it, exactly, we don’t really know, can’t say for sure, but if what we think is happening continues to happen, then something could result, but the margin of error is such that we doin’t know for sure, but that could change.

  3. Andy Weiss says:

    As long as media types like Revkin keeps deifying James Hansen, it is totally appropriate to point to his abysmal past track record, which now goes back over 20 years.

  4. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    What about if you could see microwave radiation, would you be scared too?

  5. Can you find them?

    Maybe I see it.

    But I don’t see good football being played in the stadium.

  6. Diogenes says:

    I can’t believe that this fraud concerning CO2 is still an issue! Chemtrail’s yes. But CO2 is harmless. People get CO2 mixed up with assorted smelting additives (other metals) that spew out of industrial heavy metal manufacturing mill chimneys. Especially lead.

    I don’t use Microwaves either. Especially after seeing what it does to food when viewed
    under a microscope.

  7. Stephen Coulson says:

    In 2006, Russian defector Alexander Litvinenko was assassinated by poisoning with 10 micrograms of Polonium 210. The average human male weighs about 60kg. That means that he was killed by an amount of polonium that comes out to be about 0.166ppm of his body mass. 280ppm is more than 1600 times greater. Very small concentrations can have profound effects.

    • Brad Griffeth says:

      But C02 is not poisonous in small concentrations like (man-made) radioactive polonium is…In fact, it is plant food and is regularily increased in concentration in greenhouses to make plants grow faster, with no harmful effects on humans. C02 has been at much higher concentrations in the past, and that is when the earth was covered in plant life to a greater extent than today. It makes no sense to worry about C02, but lets worry much more about real pollutants like S02, NOX, and others that make up smog, that kills up to 100, 000 people a year.

    • In that case, the CO2 in your breath should kill you instantly.

  8. Michigan Grad says:

    Of the so-called “greenhouse gases”, carbon dioxide pales in comparison to methane and dihydrogen monoxide. Shouldn’t we first ban their use and production????

    • John C says:

      I believe CO2 has a half-life that is 4-5 times than CH4 in our atmosphere. CH4 levels have also gone up since pre-industrial levels. The focus on CO2 has to do with longevity in the atmosphere and that CH4 will eventually breakdown to Co2 anyway.

      Dihydrogen Monoixde AKA Water is a very powerful feedback variable in our atmosphere… Though it is not considered a constant such as CO2, it’s actions will be biased by greenhouse gases.

      Some arguments have been made on cloud formation resulting in reflection (Lindzen) that would ultimately slowdown GW. I’m in the opinion that this is not the case. Evaporation is not the only think increasing, the higher average temps will result in a more convective atmosphere – Thus higher incidences of precipitation… Locally heavy events will probably increase the level of ‘feast or famine’ incidences in the Earth’s hydrological cycles.

      As always, I’m open to debate on GW… I understand the smug remarks as science is not always perfect, especially when we have on test subject – Our Earth. But basic physics shows how CO2 works – I find it hard to believe that educated people would say there are no negatives to a rising CO2 ppm.

      • I’ve got some homework for you. See if you can find anywhere on Earth where atmsopheric H2O is as low as 390 ppm.

      • Paul H says:

        “I find it hard to believe that educated people would say there are no negatives to a rising CO2 ppm.”

        I would find it hard to argue with this statement. After all there are pros + cons to most changes in life.

        However I would find it equally hard to believe people would say there no positives to a rising CO2 ppm.

      • M Carpenter says:

        South Pole.

  9. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    WWF watch out for moths if your skeptic

  10. Canuck says:

    It’s a fact CO2 levels increase after global warming not before. Ergo, CO2 cannot be the cause of climate change. It is however a little known fact, and a convenience for the proponents of carbon tax.

  11. John C says:

    While you’re at it – Show the thickness of the atmosphere by putting a piece of paper over an orange. Or show the concentration of Mercury in the ocean that could cause catastrophic nervous damage in seafood eaters.

    This example seems clever at first, but it’s bad science and correlations like this that lead to misunderstanding on both sides of the GW debate. The truth is there is a balance of CO2 on planet Earth. Human activities only contribute a fraction of that CO2, yet it’s a fraction that is not naturally found as it’s unlocking Carbon that has been locked over long periods of time.

    I certainly don’t believe in the Gore doomsday crap – But it’s not BS that GW can occur and that CO2 biases the atmosphere for certain types of climate…. Remember, CLIMATE, not weather. Both Al Gore and GW deniers drive me nuts with all the weather references! You cannot spot trends using local atmospheric events!

    Needless to say it’s fine if you believe that CO2 won’t warm the atmosphere – We’ll see where we are in a few decades. I guess there’s no need to be proactive and try to use physics to determine things…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s