The Great Global Warming Swindle (Complete)

Greenhouse gases warm up the planet. That's why they're called that way.
The more you put up there, the warmer the atmosphere gets.

We shouldn't even be debating this. Skepticism on climate change is dishonest propaganda.

astrocreep, just leave him bite his own tongue.

If it does nothing else at least it is amusing.

Except for the fact that CO2 levels always lag temperature, in average by hundreds of years.

Here is a graph showing the increase of CO2 in the 20th century.



Here is a graph of borehole temperautes showing when surface warming began in the 20th century warming.



The geological record has shown that CO2 lags temperature, hence CO2 did not cause warming.

We are being told anthropogenic CO2 caused the current warming, but that is not true.

No I am not insulted but what I am saying is that these fine particles do indeed contribute to it.

Muaddib ... do you have any friends who like you?

You latch onto things like an old dog and simply will not let go of it. Just like when I said that the 2005 Pentagon Report on Climate Change had been suppressed by the bush administration. You insisted that I was wrong so I did some research and found out that you were right and I admitted it both publically and without rancor yet you harassed me about it for several more posts before I asked if I had to bend over and spread em for you.

I was talking about CO2 being held aloft and I was saying THAT is the human contribution to the matter NOT that humans were the sole cause.


Astrocreep:
Evaporated water is a gas until it combines with heavier than air particles, becomes droplets and falls as rain. Please tell me why CO2 combining with very fine particles would not stay aloft and combined affect the atmosphere?

[edit on 17-3-2007 by grover]

Here is another graph showing the lag of CO2 level in the past.

Well, one thing I think both sides need to be more vigilent about is who we call scientists. I have a BS degree but I don't study climate science except for what I read..and thats not to say you need a BS, MS or PHD to have an opinion. You certainly don't.

One of the best and most reputable articles I have read on this subject is a bit dated but should suffice.


cfa-www.harvard.edu...

I think the main premise we are trying to do is not to take hope away that and proport that we are helpless..but rather we are saying, lets take a breath and look at this from a broad perspective before do do something that might be more harmful than helpful. Good intentions are admirable, at least in my view but the best intentions with bad information can often cause disasster.

One localized effect in my region was the pine beetle dessimation of the pine forest. It has now been romanticized and blamed on global warming but the real culprit was an ice storm which downed many pines and gave them a habitate.

Trained and educated conservation officers wanted to allow logging on a limited scale to help remove the trees but enviros blocked it. 2 years later, we have a real problem. Good intentions but a lack of understanding of the workings of things. It happens.

Did you watch the video? If the CO2 as the main culprit of GW was true, the upper atmosphere would be the first place showing the increase in temp. This is not what the data shows, according to the video, it is an increase in the lower atmosphere. That does not follow the Greenhouse model as it has been described. What do you say to that?

Also if you watched the video, increased CO2 is a byproduct of GW not vice versa. When you look at the historical record it shows it played out that way for a very long time. First the planet warms, then after about an 800 year lag on average, the CO2 increases.

Once again, taking such small time frames as we are currently talking about and extrapolating them into long term trends with the Global environment is about as accurate as taking a one day gain or loss of a particular stock mutual fund and describing the trend of the whole Dow Jones average for a year from that small piece of data.

Well, we are just talking about apples and oranges and we're talking a few layers higher up when we talk about CO2. The CO2 in question has nothing to do with rain. The effect you are refering is still with consequence when a volcano erupts such as Mt St. Helens and seen on a localized effect as dust domes around major metros which is a viable problem and reason enough to limit emissions but has notta to do with global warming.

I was living in Portland Maine when St. Helens erupted and for 2 or 3 years afterwards we had the most incredible sunsets I have ever witnessed.

Umm actually if I am not mistaken, small airborne particles such as volcanos and mankind for that matter, make the Earth actually cooler for a period, till they wash down out of the air. I am pretty sure that after almost every major volcanic erruption there is a noticeable cooling around the globe where the dust travels. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Yes, volcanos cause a cooling effect. Tabora lowered Northern hemisphere temps which caused early American colonist to retreat to their fireplaces during the summer months. By the way, those lower temp years are also added into the averages we use to compare todays temps.

[edit on 17-3-2007 by astrocreep]

Well that's the solution then, all we have to do is manually "cause" one or two major eruptions and everything will balance out. Seems easy enough.

What in the world?.... Yes grover...I have friends who like me... friend's don't have to agree with each other all the time to be friends...



....nice try grover to drag something "which is in your mind" to this thread....

Could you for once discuss the present thread instead of making things up to try to prove whatever you are trying to prove?...



CO2 is also a gas, and in fact even with the human contribution it exists in small quantities on Earth's atmosphere.

Earth's atmosphere is composed 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and the 1% left is trace gases. Of those trace gases, water vapor is the most abundant one, and makes 95% of all trace gases, also water vapor retains twice the amount of heat than CO2, while the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.038%.

BTW gover, all CO2 is 1.5 times heavier than air. The oceans, animals, bacteria, plants and even humans all use and produce a percentage of CO2.

CO2 becomes a real problem to life when it is found at quantities of 10% or higher. But without CO2 life would not exist on Earth. Go tell that to the EPA who branded CO2 as a "pollutant"....

[edit on 17-3-2007 by Muaddib]

Bite your tongue, pavil. I prefer living in deglaciation to permafrost accross the Ohio river any day.

Actually, you might just as well draw arrows from CO2 peaks (eg. around 19900 and 15500 years ago) with temperature peaks lagging between two and five centuries after them.

The relation between CO2 and temperature rises is positively looped. All the more reason to urgently limit its presence in the atmosphere. If we don't want to end up like Venus that is.

That's not true...the Earth has had 10 and even 16 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than it has now, yet we never had "runaway global warming" and the Earth didn't become like Venus.

The Earth has had up to 4,000 + ppm concentration of CO2, it didn't become like Venus or had runaway global warming, and now that it has about 370 ppm we are to believe "Earth will become like Venus or Mars"?...

[edit on 17-3-2007 by Muaddib]

Can you back up that assertion with a results from a scientific paper? Just by a quick look at the chart, it doesn't look like your assertion works throughtout the whole time period. You can't just cherry pick data and say, see? You have to take the whole batch of data and then determine the trends. Just my opinion.

The following is a graph which shows the concentrations of CO2 which Earth has had for the last 600 million years.

Muaddib, Did the report show what caused the huge methane increase period III and subsequent crash in methane in period IV? Just seems like a huge swing in a short period of time relatively speaking.

Edit to correct my periods


[edit on 17-3-2007 by pavil]

Methane is a reactive gas, it has a lifetime of about a decade. When it's molecules mix with ozone molecules it changes chemically.