Alleviate world hunger: produce more clean carbon dioxide

From:Canada Free Press

By Dirck T. Hartmann Thursday, July 3, 2008

image(Editor’s Note: To many in the know, Dirck T. Hartmann, who worked on the Apollo Space Program and many other significant NASA projects, was a fighter pilot in WWII, flying P38s.  So when this gifted scientist/engineer/physicist and 87-year-old hero felt compelled to answer the questions of Man Made Global Warming, not only his son and grandchildren knew he had something to say with factual substance, truth and knowledge.  What he has to say is clear and concise and should be read by everyone.)

What is your carbon footprint? That is the wrong question to ask. A more meaningful question is–How much carbon dioxide does it take to grow the wheat required to produce a loaf of bread? Or–How much carbon dioxide does it take to grow the corn for the chicken feed required to produce a dozen eggs?

Far from being a pollutant, man along with every animal on land, fish in the sea, and bird in the air is totally dependent on atmospheric carbon dioxide for his food supply.

Some politicians complain that the United States with only 3% of the world population uses 25% of the energy. But the clean carbon dioxide which we produce is increasing food production everywhere on earth. China, on the other hand, is building new power plants at a record rate using the abundant domestic supply of coal they have and has now passed the United States as the leading producer of carbon dioxide. Although their coal has a high sulfur content, they are building the new plants without any pollution controls. The sulfur dioxide which these power plants are releasing to the atmosphere, besides smelling like rotten eggs is, in sunlight, readily converted to sulfur trioxide, the highly solublegas responsible for most acid rain.

Photosynthesis is the process by which plants, using energy from sunlight, convert carbon dioxide and water into high energy fuels. It is responsible for all the fuel that feeds forest fires, and for the rapid grow-back of fuel after a fire. But even with the hundreds of millions of tons of coal and the billions of barrels of oil and gasoline that are burned annually, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere remains about .04%.

It has been estimated that more than two hundred billion tons of atmospheric carbon are fixed yearly by photosynthesis, 10%to 20% by land plants, and the remaining 80%to 90% by plant plankton and algae in the ocean, which constantly resupply us with oxygen. Atmospheric carbon dioxide acts like a thermostat for plant growth, increases triggering vast blooms of ocean algae, and spurts in the rate of growth of land plants. As long as man burns coal and oil responsibly, that is with pollution controls that minimize the production of acid rain, the earth can never have too much carbon dioxide. The plants will not permit it.

Anyone who has lived in a desert area where the relative humidity is frequently below 5%, knows that dry air is a lousy green house gas. It can be 115 degrees F (46 degrees C) during the day yet cool off so rapidly that a sweater is needed two or three hours after sunset.  Despite the heat sink of the ground with rocks hot enough to fry an egg, the heat is radiated rapidly away through the dry air to the clear night sky. Since dry desert air has about the same .04% concentration of carbon dioxide as air everywhere else, it is not credible to conclude that carbon dioxide is causing global warming

Water vapor is the most effective greenhouse gas by far With high humidity, even without cloud cover, the night air cools at a rate so slow as to be nearly imperceptible, particularly if you are trying to sleep without air conditioning.

High humidity is the reason nights are so balmy in the tropics. At 100 degrees F and 100% relative humidity, water vapor accounts for only 2% of the atmosphere. It has a greater effect than all other greenhouse gases combined but, since it cannot be regulated, is rarely mentioned as a greenhouse gas.

If human activity is not the cause, why are the ice sheets on the earth poles receding? They are melting for the same reason that the polar caps on Mars are melting. For the 200 years or so that a record of sun spot activity has been kept, it has been observed that global temperatures on earth correlate closely with sun spot activity,very low activity corresponding to a mini ice age, and high activity to global warming.

Every second the sun converts 564 million tons of hydrogen into 560 million tons of helium, consuming its mass at the rate of 4 million tons per second. It has been doing this for 4.5 billion years and has about 4.5 billion years to go before all its hydrogen is used up. At that time it will have consumed less than 1% of its mass. This enormous solar furnace is responsible for climate change as well as all weather on earth.

The U.S. has a domestic supply of coal that is alone sufficient to meet our present power needs and projections for growth for at least 1,000 years, even without building any new nuclear power plants. Burning the coal responsibly and releasing the carbon locked up in it as clean carbon dioxide will benefit crop yields all over the earth. The great atmospheric patterns of air movements ensure a steady supply of carbon dioxide for crop growth, and a steady supply of oxygen for animals and people. To increase the rate at which photosynthesis removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, a respected scientist proposed to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, seeding the ocean to trigger algae blooms. This practical, inexpensive, highly effective means for sequestering carbon dioxide would benefit the food chain in the oceans and increase fish populations. But because it did not impose hardships, require trading carbon credits, punish the U.S. or any other nation, or require increased governmental control, the IPCC rejected it. The IPCC uses the hoax of man made global warming to increase its power and that of a corrupt, anti-American United Nations that has proven itself impotent in combating world wide acts of terrorism, genocide in Sudan, the real threat of nuclear proliferation in the mid-east from Iran and Syria, or human rights violations in China and Africa.

Our mainstream media uses every opportunity to hype the hoax of man made global warming by repeated reporting of data and events that appear to support it, and ignoring those that contradict it.  When the NFC championship game In 2007 between the Packers and the New York Giants was played at Green Bay in record low temperatures and blizzard conditions, there was no mention of global cooling; nor was there any in 2007 when below freezing temperatures threatened the vegetable crops in the south and the citrus crops in Florida. The drought in California is the result of colder than normal conditions in the equatorial Pacific Ocean, and the fact that ocean temperatures along the Pacific coast have been falling for the last three years is never mentioned. But after hurricane Katrina we were fed a host of dire predictions which warned of the increasing severity of storms, the melting of the polar ice caps, and the flooding of coastal areas from rising sea level, if we do not drastically reduce the release of greenhouse gasses to combat global warming. Which greenhouse gasses is not specified. We already have pollution controls in the smokestacks of most power plants, steel mills, and factories that minimize the release of sulfur dioxide.

The only completely uncontrolled exhaust gas is carbon dioxide, and photosynthesis automatically controls its atmospheric concentration for us.

Three billion years ago when the earth’s atmosphere was an unbreathable brew of noxious gases with almost no oxygen, a small green algae evolved in the ocean which, using the energy from sunlight over a few million years, completely altered the earth’s atmosphere. This oceanic green algae, the first plant to use photosynthesis to convert carbon dioxide and water into high energy fuel, was of course followed by the evolution of an almost limitless number and variety of carbon dioxide consuming plants.

Fortunately for mankind and all animals, fish,and birds, all of whom are totally dependent on plants, the oceanic green algae continues to perform its magic in the oceans of the earth today. Every three centuries all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and dissolved in the waters of the earth goes through the cycle photosynthesis, decay, photosynthesis, with the cycle constantly renewing the earth’s supply of oxygen.

People on the left claim global warming is real, a threat to the continued existence of mankind, and the debate as to its cause is over! Although none of this is true, it nevertheless is what four of my grandchildren were taught in high school. Most politicians on the left have little respect for truth and no regard for clarity, and apparently many high school teachers reflect their views. My oldest granddaughter just graduated from MITwhere she was spared the political rhetoric of the left on global warming. However Caltech’s Argyros Professor and professor of chemistry, in an article titled “Powering the Planet”states “The carbon dioxide we produce over the next 40 years, and its associated effects will last for a timescale comparable to modern human history. This is why, within the next 20 years we either solve this problem or the world will never be the same.” This is nonsense. It ignores the more than 200 billion tons of carbon that is sequestered yearly through photosynthesis from carbon dioxide In the atmosphere. Since this has been known for 40 years, I can only assume he is politically motivated to make such a statement.  Hopefully man made global warming will come to be recognized for the hoax It truly is.

Dirck T.Hartmann is a retired Aerospace Engineer living in Huntington Beach, CA.

5 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

130 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Xavaria
July 4, 2008 5:11 pm

Trees are the answer! Perhaps awareness of this along with a more proactive approach to reforesting while an aggressive decrease in deforesting will help mitigate the misuse or irresponsible production of carbon dioxide. Which is not to say it should be excused or allowed to continue. Those acting in such a manner should be held accountable, especially in light of the scientific advances we have at our disposal. Shirking ones environmental responsibility isn’t acceptable in this day and age, on a global or individual basis.

Steve Moore
July 4, 2008 5:39 pm

I really liked the perspective of this, but I must take exception to this:
“…besides smelling like rotten eggs…”
As one who has had years of experience in the industrial production of SO2, I can assure you it does not smell like rotten eggs. That honor belongs to Hydrogen Sulfide.

July 4, 2008 6:04 pm

Anthony;
I asked a question right before you shut down the comments in your “Curve Fitting” topic. Is it ok to ask it again here, even tho it’s OT?
A dumb question about curve fitting, which I’ve been unable to answer using my old math texts or google:
What’s the general equation for a skewed sine wave?
Thanks to anyone that can help.

David Segesta
July 4, 2008 6:12 pm

To do my part in that effort, I barbecued hot dogs today ( with a gas grille) and then drank a beer. Tough job but somebody’s got to do it.

July 4, 2008 6:44 pm

Mr. Hartmann’s argument is reasonable, but it neglects one thing: How are all of these climate modelers and carbon traders going to pay their kids’ way through college if climate is 99% natural processes and natural cycles? How will politicians overturn the established order if they cannot reasonably blame the established order for destroying the Earth?
You can’t get a scientific grant from the big foundations, the NSF, NASA, etc. unless you get with the theme that keeps budgets funded–climate catastrophe caused by humans. Climate catastrophe may be a mass psychosis, but it is a mass psychosis that gives job security to a lot of academics, bureaucrats, and petty functionaries.

July 4, 2008 6:51 pm

Excellent article! Great find, Anthony.
The basic hypothesis of the AGW crowd is that increases in CO2 will result in runaway global warming. This is bunk; runaway global warming has never happened in Earth’s long history, even when CO2 levels were much higher than today’s.
Even recent history shows that when CO2 is abundant, life flourishes.

Steven Hill
July 4, 2008 7:14 pm

If Co2 is higher, would plant growth expand on it’s own? It’s been a wet year here in Ky and we have all kinds of very thick foliage. Yes, I realize that this is a single area of the entire planet, but it’s really thick this year.
thanks,
Steve

RICH
July 4, 2008 7:26 pm

Exactly!
Have you noticed how everything is “green” these days? We are reminded relentlessly to be “green” in order to Save The Planet (I hate this term).
Doesn’t the Green in green-house gas suggest that we ARE being green?
So… we should be green, but we should stop emitting greenhouse gases. LOL.
This manmade global warming/cooling/weather/climate change hype is sooooooo stupid. Seriously. You alarmists are just…. luney.
Happy birthday America! Let’s pull our collective heads out of the earth, ok?
P.S. Can someone please explain how taxation/carbon offsets will invigorate our economy? Thank you.

Ted Annonson
July 4, 2008 7:51 pm

Steve:
I’m not a biology or botany major, so I can’t answer you — but JunkScience.com always has a few studies on the effects of high concentrations of CO2 on various types of plants, trees, etc. I’m sure you could find some kind of answer to your question.
Ted

Leon Brozyna
July 4, 2008 7:59 pm

From the article:
…a respected scientist proposed … seeding the ocean to trigger algae blooms. This practical, inexpensive, highly effective means for sequestering carbon dioxide would benefit the food chain in the oceans and increase fish populations.
Now I wonder, why would such a competent and respected organization that gave us the Food for Oil program have a problem with this suggestion?
With a little editing this would make a fine text the next time there’s an e-mail campaign to Congress — offer simple, cost-effective solutions to non-serious problems.

theoddone
July 4, 2008 8:47 pm

Hmm….well we won’t be able to keep adding CO2 for much longer…Not with Peak Oil here. Soon the the ecnomies of the world will collapse. And we’ll experience another LIA. Billions will die.

July 4, 2008 8:56 pm

As well a promoting increased growth of plants, high CO2 means plants use less water compared to the same amount of growth in low CO2 environs. Thus improved vegetation in areas with limited water supply!

Evan Jones
Editor
July 4, 2008 9:02 pm

I would be interested in seeing a 60-year world plant biomass curve as matched with CO2. Assuming reliable data exists. Is there a correlation?
(I’ll add that I am still skeptical of any CO2 proxy that has WWII CO2 output as flat or even slightly decreased. File under “No way, Jose”.)

Evan Jones
Editor
July 4, 2008 9:04 pm

Happy birthday America!
But surely Independence Day is July 2.

Ted Annonson
July 4, 2008 9:23 pm

Shouldn’t the question be, “Did your activities today create enough Co2 to grow enogh wheat to produce a loaf of bread? If not, you’re not doing your part to feed the starving population in the third world.”

Philip_B
July 4, 2008 9:27 pm

The world is indeed greening as a result of more CO2. Global vegetation has increased a remarkable 6% in 17 years.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0605_030605_climatechange.html
Note the article attributes the increase to the vague term ‘climate change’. No evidence is presented that warmer temperatures are in any way involved.

Daniel Rothenberg
July 4, 2008 10:37 pm

People on the left claim
So, in other words, this is a politically motivated AGW hit piece written by someone with, presumably, little to no background in the atmospheric sciences. Why should I take his claims seriously, when he doesn’t even acknowledge that it’s not “people on the left” claiming that global warming is a real threat, but scientists who specialize in the field of climatology, physics, and the atmospheric sciences at large?

bsneath
July 4, 2008 11:29 pm

I think China is (inadvertently) experimenting with algae blooms off their coast.

fred
July 5, 2008 12:12 am

Well, I think both Mr Watts and Mr Hartmann should be prosecuted at once by California, not to mention the Federal Government, for crimes against humanity and for fraud.
Now, this may seem an overreaction to what these two have done, the one having simply expressed what may seem to you all like an opinion, and the other for having disseminated it.
You see, the falsity of the propositions in the article is so obvious to right minded people that there is only one explanation for their assertion: it is wilfully misleading. That means that either writing these things or disseminating them is committing fraud. It is like Enron,
Worse, Mr Hartmann admits to offering these propositions to young impressionable children (who were so innocent, mark you, that they did not even realize it was their duty to denounce him to the authorities). This is an appalling misconduct which will horrify right minded people everywhere. Why, it will seem to many of us a sort of frightful intellectual child abuse! If not illegal at the moment, it should certainly be made so as soon as possible.
Now so far, you will all agree with me that it is fraud. Thank you for your support and understanding on this. But you may not appreciate why uttering these things is a crime against humanity.
It is because we are at the tipping point, the future of the planet is at stake, catastrophe faces us if we do not do exactly the opposite of what Mr Hartmann wants, and lower CO2 at once.
The catastrophe is indeed so great that almost any cost is justified to get CO2 down. Weak minded liberals at the moment are appalled by the fact that biofuels seem (according to the World Bank) to have driven up the cost of food 75% and so are causing mass starvation. This is a small price to pay for the great goal of avoiding catastrophe for the planet. We will probably have to triple or quadruple the price of food. The poor in the undeveloped world will die in their millions. Hundreds of millions. Maybe billions.
You see, the saddest part about it will be their demands to be able to burn coal or oil, which we will have to deny. We will supply them with blueprints on how to build windmills from renewable materials, but I am afraid it will not help them very much, though it will make us feel better. Oh dear, they will probably construct coal burning electricity plants regardless. Well, we will just have to bomb them.
But it will all be a sad necessity in order to save the planet from the catastrophic famines which will result if we allow CO2 to continue to rise, and global warming to continue. Do we really want millions, hundreds of millions, perhaps billions to die of global warming produced famines? I thought not.
It is this great goal that Mr Watts and Mr Hartmann are undermining by their corrupt and criminal conversations, and that is why we have to prosecute them and jail them as soon as possible.
California, Justice, dig out your briefs! Usufruct, my friends, bear usufruct in mind as you write them! The future of the planet and the welfare of Mr Hartmann’s grandchildren, Mr Watt’s grandchildren, all our grandchildren, is at stake! My own nephews and nieces and great nephews and nieces, their future too, come to that. Even the futures of my nieces’ cousins’ grand children, twice removed. The distant descendants of my lovely pet tortoise. One feels faint thinking about it. We must do anything to stop our descendants from starving and being flooded. It is all too appalling for words. Get busy now!

July 5, 2008 12:41 am

Anthony, I think your site is fantastic! Now can I help it remain fantastic by modifying the import of your quote above on Al Gore. I thoroughly gave up AGW three months ago and now I’m promoting it as you and others do: GCR-induced cloud cover, etc – as you can see from our website. I was totally ashamed of Al Gore’s film when I found out there was nothing but misleading half-truths. But still, he wrote a fantastic book “Earth in the Balance” which is/was a set book for the Open University and it is deservedly so. It is anything but stupid – unlike his film.

DaveK
July 5, 2008 1:00 am

I’ll second that comment about the odor of Sulfur Dioxide… it smells like burnt matches, not rotten eggs. If you’re getting the rotten egg smell out the stack, you’ve got some very serious combustion efficiency problems!
DaveK

M White
July 5, 2008 1:35 am

Has there really been a dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2? I see a figure of 280ppm as a pre industrial figure in the mainstream media, but searching the internet I find this may not be the case. Infact some sites suggest there hasn’t been much change in the past few hundred years.
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_summary.DOC
http://forums.modbee.com/viewtopic.php?p=271062&sid=1bdfd3a8451dcab040044c5045807ba0

Brendan H
July 5, 2008 2:50 am

“If AGW can’t stand up to a “hit piece” such as this on it’s own merit, why the need to put down someone speaking their mind on the issue?”
No problem with discussing the merits of AGW, but this piece identifies AGW as a political stance: “People on the left claim global warming is real…” Not only that, but the author also claims that AGW is a hoax: “Our mainstream media uses every opportunity to hype the hoax of man made global warming…”
Therefore, Hartmann is claiming that AGW theory is a leftist hoax, that the proponents of AGW are deliberating peddling a falsehood; in other words, that thousands of climate scientists around the world are cheating in order to produce a pre-determined outcome and then blatantly lying about what they’re doing.
This is a long way from discussing the merits of AGW, unless AGW is regarded as a politically motivated conspiracy.
Unfortunately, the ‘hoax’ claim is a repeating motif among some AGW sceptics, and threatens to place them in the same category as the likes of creationists. But as with hoax claims about evolution, the AGW hoax claim is incoherent. On the one hand, such a hoax requires utter secrecy and flawless execution; on the other, it requires whistle-blowers and incompetence. The hoax must be both invisible and in plain sight; it must be open to exposure by clear-sighted and fearless individuals, but must never lose its status as a hoax.
These factors point to the utility of the hoax claim. One might ask why human beings have a tendency to regard generally accepted, defining issues such as evolution and global warming as hoaxes, rather than, say, cognitive errors. I’m no expert, but the primary factors in producing hoax claims seem to be a minority view that regards the theory as a gateway to the destruction of life as we know it. In other words, an alarmism that mirrors the alarmism of some of the proponents of global warming.
So alarmists of both schools are probably not so far apart, although I doubt they’ll be getting along together any time soon.

1 2 3 6
Verified by MonsterInsights