Debunking "Anthropogenic Climate Change & Global Warming": Presenting the Lake Vostok Antarctic Ice

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99

Not close.

So why would oceanic CO2 capacity be relevant then?

a reply to: ColdWisdom

Solar insolation is the term used for the total electromagnetic radiation recieved from the Sun by the Earth's surface. It varies according to orbital and axial factors as well as the amount of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the sun (in regard to climate, at visible wavelengths). It has nothing to do with solar wind.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: knightsofcydonia

Nothing to say? Just a link?
Good night.

There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor greenhouse gases as has been proposed (82,83,97,123).
We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions.

As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.

The United States and other countries need to produce more energy, not less. The most practical, economical, and environmentally sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies.

Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO2 produced does, however, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes, and the diversity of plant and animal life is increased.

Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 increase. Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ColdWisdom

Solar insolation is the term used for the total electromagnetic radiation recieved from the Sun by the Earth's surface. It varies according to orbital and axial factors as well as the amount of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the sun (in regard to climate, at visible wavelengths). It has nothing to do with solar wind.

Holy Sh!t

Look at that. I actually got phage to articulate his response in more than a sentence.

a reply to: Vector99

So why would oceanic CO2 capacity be relevant then?

Because there is an overall equilibrium between atmospheric CO2 and dissolved CO2, dependent upon water temperature. In lieu of an increase in atmospheric concentrations, higher water temperatures would result in lower concentrations in the ocean and an increase in atmospheric concentrations. A balance dependent upon temperature.

Increase atmospheric levels and dissolved levels will increase in response, precisely because saturation has not been reached.

a reply to: knightsofcydonia

I think it's best not to promote excessive CO2 emission. Historically warmer temps have indeed coincided with life tending to thrive, but artificially introducing excessive amounts to the oceans could really throw PH levels out of balance.

a reply to: Vector99

Not to mention the other stuff involved with burning stuff.

a reply to: Phage

Well that really has nothing to do with overall capacity at all. Everything to do with temperature itself, and metabolic rates of oceanic activities.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99

Not to mention the other stuff involved with burning stuff.

Honestly the more I look into it, it's not actual temp rise that is the real concern, but rather the direct effect on our oceans. Water will always be there, but if we make it completely toxic we are in for bad times.

That said, I'm not entirely convinced mankind can actually kill the oceans without having direct intent to do such a thing.

a reply to: Vector99

What does "overall capacity" have to do with what I said?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99

What does "overall capacity" have to do with what I said?

Because it was the answer to my question about the overall capacity of oceanic CO2 levels?

a reply to: Vector99

The real message that underlies the goal of the radical environmentalists is to blame modern man for every change in nature. They have avoided blaming volcanic eruptions as man caused—so far. Nature itself is a cause of atmospheric pollution, and this source is gigantic and comparable to all the man-made ills one can name.

a reply to: knightsofcydonia

Trying to talk to people who follow the "Church of Climatology" is just as hard as trying to discuss something with any religious zealot.

They have been brainwashed by their Globalist masters and will pay anything or cede any freedom because of their dogma.

a reply to: Vector99

This one?

So why would oceanic CO2 capacity be relevant then?

Again, where did I say anything about "CO2 capacity?" Was your questioning circular?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99

This one?

So why would oceanic CO2 capacity be relevant then?

Again, where did I say anything about "CO2 capacity?" Was your questioning circular?

Your first response you said

The warmer the ocean is the less CO2 it can contain.

I was wondering why that is relevant.

a reply to: Vector99

Did I explain it to your satisfaction?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: knightsofcydonia
a reply to: Vector99

The real message that underlies the goal of the radical environmentalists is to blame modern man for every change in nature. They have avoided blaming volcanic eruptions as man caused—so far. Nature itself is a cause of atmospheric pollution, and this source is gigantic and comparable to all the man-made ills one can name.

I think the man made climate change hysteria is just that. Hysteria. I don't doubt for a second we have an impact on it, but I do doubt that we have as significant an impact on it as climate change extremists would like us to believe.

a reply to: Vector99

As a general rule, it's a good idea to avoid extremists of any sort.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99

Did I explain it to your satisfaction?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

No. You didn't cover why oceanic CO2 capacity is relevant. Unless it is irrelevant. Which then causes me to ask why it's worth mentioning?

a reply to: Vector99

I didn't say anything about "CO2 capacity." You did.