O
Man made global warming causing an ice age explained.
- Thread starter Ollie
- Start date
"carbon dioxide induced famines"????? HAHAHAHAHA
No, the famines are created when Obama's monkeys turn off the water to the one of the major food producers in the nation.
No, the famines are created when Obama's monkeys turn off the water to the one of the major food producers in the nation.
Ollie,
A while back I was reading a study linked to another link you posted. I believe it was a NASA study that indicated ice core samples showed that the CO2 levels during the peak of the last ice age where like 4000 PPM more than 10 times what we have today. I may be wrong but I dont think that was caused by man either. It sure would be nice if people where smart enough to see the obvious flaws in the global warming logic.But then If that where the case most of what is dicussed in this section would be unnecessary and the world would be a much better place.
A while back I was reading a study linked to another link you posted. I believe it was a NASA study that indicated ice core samples showed that the CO2 levels during the peak of the last ice age where like 4000 PPM more than 10 times what we have today. I may be wrong but I dont think that was caused by man either. It sure would be nice if people where smart enough to see the obvious flaws in the global warming logic.But then If that where the case most of what is dicussed in this section would be unnecessary and the world would be a much better place.
O
Ollie
ACCOUNT CLOSED
Here is a link that you can read all kinds of information about global warming/cooling.
Myths, facts, who is doing what and why, loads of great links.
http://www.isthereglobalcooling.com/
Myths, facts, who is doing what and why, loads of great links.
http://www.isthereglobalcooling.com/
If you have an hour to spare, watch the movie on this site. It's awesome. The link is right above the section that breaks into 2 columns.
You know, that kinda makes sense. The oceans and other bodies of water would be covered in more ice, so they would not be able to sink the carbon dioxide at a sustainable rate. Same as the snowball earth theory. The problem with that theory, is the carbon dioxide levels are what allowed us to escape an ice age. This kinda proves that CO2 raises temperatures. Hummm.
O
Ollie
ACCOUNT CLOSED
Actually, there is very serious evidence that Co2 does have a direct coelation between warming and higher Co2.
However, it is a byproduct, not the cause.
Reasoning behind this is simple when you think about it.
take a piece of meat, toss it in the freezer.
It doesn't decay very fast does it.
Now leave that same piece out side when it is 80 for a couple days.
Decays pretty fast.
Decaying things give off Co2.
So, when it is warmer things decay faster and give off more Co2.
Plant matter, bodily waste, etc, all decay. All that gives off Co2.
However, it is a byproduct, not the cause.
Reasoning behind this is simple when you think about it.
take a piece of meat, toss it in the freezer.
It doesn't decay very fast does it.
Now leave that same piece out side when it is 80 for a couple days.
Decays pretty fast.
Decaying things give off Co2.
So, when it is warmer things decay faster and give off more Co2.
Plant matter, bodily waste, etc, all decay. All that gives off Co2.
That's classic. What happens when a hypochondriac lives long enough to see both a global cooling scare and a global warming scare. And, manages to write about both. I learned the hard way, when politicos get excited about the unprovable, it's not worth believing.
Problem with that theory is animals and plants had to sink the CO2 in order to grow, and die, and then emit them during the decay process, as CO2 or CH4.
They were talking about 10X increase in concentration. I do believe that at that level of increase would raise temperatures some. Not as much as Al Gore believes, but some.
When the earth gets cold, the little critters in the oceans (phytoplankton and such) stop growing. Their the source of all the Limestone, with is calcium carbonate, they don't decay as much as freeze in stone, the CO2. The source of CO2 then, is natural leakage, and volcanoes. CO2 builds up, and you get some low altitude warming from that.
CO2 is a product of warming, it doesn't create warming. Scientific evidence clearly shows there is no greenhouse effect associated with the warming we experienced in the 90's. Atmospheric temps are not increasing at a rate higher than surface temps, which is a greenhouse characteristic. What heats up our plant during the day? The sun. It couldn't be more logical or obvious that solar cycles are what impact the earth temps. Watch the movie or read some data on the site referenced below. They had a great analogy on there. The engine in your car is what powers it, much like the sun powers our planet. When your car won't run, do you investigate the engine or do you go look at something insignificant like a lug nut (CO2)? CO2 is a trace gas, it is basically insignificant in the makeup of our atmosphere, much a like single lug nut on your car. Even a 1st grader could completely understand this analogy and understand that blaming CO2 makes no sense.
Don't worry, I've studied all about spectral absorbtion, and blackbody re-radiation. I could pull up old threads and make your head hurt. You are correct that some CO2 increase is the result of warming. Your correct that it isn't the culprit in our current climate. I'm talking about huge increases in CO2, like the 10X that was quoted. The sun bathes the earth in something like 174 petawatts of energy continuously, and changes intensity in the 1% region. Solar is definitely the driving factor, in most of our current climate.
But, with all that said, CO2 does make a small contribution to temperature. It might be 10% to 30%, but it's a contributor. The major point to consider is, does it make any real difference, and what would be required to reverse that 10%? The changes would be mind blowing. Basically, you'd have to kill nearly all humans. The solution isn't very acceptable. All the crap Al Gore and his political one world government types would accomplish, is making things even worse.
In all the things that cause global temperature change, I'd say other man made global warming contributes more than CO2. For example, dark particle emissions. It's well documented that this alone could account all the warming we've seen. Plus, the heat island effect. It's small, but is probably bigger than CO2. That's one of the problems I have with CO2, it a convenient political target, because it's a problem of developed countries. Forcing people to fix the real problems, well, that wouldn't be feasible, since deforestation and desertification are third world problems. The heat island effect could simply be fixed with a bunch or white paint.
Don't forget, we are due for an ice age, that 10% might help save a some people. Global warming is nothing, in the face of global cooling. Global Cooling is a potential civilization ender. Global warming is inconvenient at best.
Last edited:
I'd be interested in your source. 10-30% seems high.
And animals, and plants....
Agreed. No matter what we do, the solar cycles are sending us into a cooling trend and there is nothing we'll do to stop it. I think the real civilization ender will be something like the Yellowstone volcano. You want to talk about some serious global cooling. It blows every 600 thousand years. It's been 640,000 since the last one. Tick tock, tick tock.
You've got idiots running around out there telling people that CO2 and other greenhouse gases, are more than 100% responsible, because volcanic sources have lowered recently, and sulfates have gone down. So, you know their full of it. They believe CO2 is 99% of all greenhouse gases, and contributes 75% of all greenhouse warming, ignoring water vapor, and think in linear terms such as, double gas, double temperature.
Then you have the other camp, where they constantly talk about water vapor, which is entirely true. They assume almost no warming is due to people, so then no natural CO2 emission increases due to the warming environment, are ever considered secondary effects to man made warming. Another words, if 85% of the CO2 increase is natural, due to temperature increases, then we can multiple everything by 0.15 just to start with.
The doubters camp produces numbers like 0.117% to 0.28% of global warming is man made CO2. I just have a hard time believing that this is all true, it's too easy.
I believe CO2 concentration increases don't really increase "global temperatures" as much as they compress absorption closer to the ground. Which is whats important to us. So if normally, 100% of the reflected IR is absorbed in the first 1.5KM, and we double the gas, I'd expect it to be absorbed, in the first 1KM. No more energy is being absorbed, it's just being absorbed closer to the ground. Of, course the atoms will emit energy, once they've held it for a short amount of time. And, the blanket effect cause the heat to slow down, it's move towards outer space. So, I'd expect ground air layers to be a little warmer, and upper atmosphere to be a little cooler.
So yha, 10% might be way high. But, I'm not about to start saying 0.28%, I just can't believe that. So, I tend to take the middle of the road. Last time I looked global temperatures where only .25 degrees up. So, saying CO2 was 0.025 degrees, seemed middle, to me.
I'm still trying to find an article I read, that made sense to me, maybe I'll have time tonight. Wade
Then you have the other camp, where they constantly talk about water vapor, which is entirely true. They assume almost no warming is due to people, so then no natural CO2 emission increases due to the warming environment, are ever considered secondary effects to man made warming. Another words, if 85% of the CO2 increase is natural, due to temperature increases, then we can multiple everything by 0.15 just to start with.
The doubters camp produces numbers like 0.117% to 0.28% of global warming is man made CO2. I just have a hard time believing that this is all true, it's too easy.
I believe CO2 concentration increases don't really increase "global temperatures" as much as they compress absorption closer to the ground. Which is whats important to us. So if normally, 100% of the reflected IR is absorbed in the first 1.5KM, and we double the gas, I'd expect it to be absorbed, in the first 1KM. No more energy is being absorbed, it's just being absorbed closer to the ground. Of, course the atoms will emit energy, once they've held it for a short amount of time. And, the blanket effect cause the heat to slow down, it's move towards outer space. So, I'd expect ground air layers to be a little warmer, and upper atmosphere to be a little cooler.
So yha, 10% might be way high. But, I'm not about to start saying 0.28%, I just can't believe that. So, I tend to take the middle of the road. Last time I looked global temperatures where only .25 degrees up. So, saying CO2 was 0.025 degrees, seemed middle, to me.
I'm still trying to find an article I read, that made sense to me, maybe I'll have time tonight. Wade
Y
Yamahamod
ACCOUNT CLOSED
Check this article out
What happened to global warming?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
What happened to global warming?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
O
Ollie
ACCOUNT CLOSED
It will only take a few more countries to drop man made global warming for the issue to just go away.
Japan has already dropped the whole issue. They call it media induced hype with no scientific basis in fact.
Australia has likewise dropped the issue. As a matter of fact they actually laugh at how much countries are spending.
However, it will take some countries in europe to admit the truth before any real change will acure.
Japan has already dropped the whole issue. They call it media induced hype with no scientific basis in fact.
Australia has likewise dropped the issue. As a matter of fact they actually laugh at how much countries are spending.
However, it will take some countries in europe to admit the truth before any real change will acure.
Yep Yamahamod, that's the real kicker right there.
Not only did they not forecast it, they were completely and utterly wrong. Usually, a good hand full of models will get the right answer, but of all the models the IPCC had available to them, not one showed a downward trend like we've seen. If their so smart, why didn't they have it in the model?
The other question, which is unanswerable, is how cold would it have gotten with out all the new CO2 in the air?
Similar threads
