Global Warming,It Exists....

Global Warming,It Exists, But Not Due To Greenhouse Gases!!

The problem with this topic is that so few people know how the earth actually works! They also don't know that man has only been polluting the air on a grand scale since the Industrial Revolution,but the ice caps have been melting for 1000's of years! The fact that there has been more than one Ice Age shows that this planet has got hotter and colder as part of a cycle that has nothing to do with mankind!

I just want to share some information that proves mankind is not to blame.Saying that,i do not believe we should pollute even more because of this.I just want people to understand what is happening to the earth,and maybe ask the question,Why are our governments trying to scare us so much!?!



1)The atmosphere is only 0.04% carbon dioxide, of which only 3% stems from human activity. Therefore, human activity cannot create global warming stemming from carbon dioxide, though natural causes of global warming certainly can exist.

2)The oceans regulate CO2 in the atmosphere to the minutest detail, as indicated by an El Nino in the Pacific Ocean, which causes CO2 measurements in the air to increase, and then they renormalize when the El Nino disappears.

3)The oceans are heating up drastically, and the atmosphere only slightly, as indicated by polar ice caps melting and increased rainfall. This points to a hot spot in the earth's core heating the oceans, not human activity.

4)Global warming is occurring due to oceans heating, not greenhouse gases. The oceans are heating due to hot spots rotating in the earth's core, which is the cause of ice ages.Oceans regulate the amount of CO2 in the air, as indicated by the chemistry and the stability over time at extremely low levels. Otherwise there would a large amount in the air, and it would fluctuate drastically (like smog does).
Principles of chemistry indicate that regulation by oceans must be absolute. CO2 disolving in water establishes an equilibrium. Equilibrium means absolute regulation.Production and sequestration of CO2 are totally irrelevant, because they do not regulate. They would leave excessive and highly varied amounts in the air, if oceans were not regulating.

5)Only around 380 parts per million of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide.Only 3% of the CO2 results from human activity.Only about 2-5% of the infrared radiation can be absorbed by a greenhouse gas, as shown by the IR absorption spectrum, which consists of a narrow band of frequencies.The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not determined by production, because it is regulated by the oceans. Cold oceans absorbs more, and warm oceans release more back into the atmosphere.The 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past century indicates oceans heating (due to other causes), and it is too minuscule to be relevant. It is an indicator, not cause, of oceans heating.

6)Air has a much lower heat capacity than water, which means oceans can heat the air, but the air cannot significantly heat the oceans.Water in the air is a greenhouse gas which swamps the others. It is about a hundred times more prevalent than CO2 in clear air, and millions of times more significant on a cloudy day. Yet moisture only changes temperatures about 10-20 degrees on a cloudy day. This means CO2 must be changing temperatures less than 0.000001 degrees all of the time.

7)When el Nino heats the Pacific, CO2 increases in the atmosphere; and after El Nino, it normalizes. It wouldn't normalize if oceans were not reabsorbing the CO2. And if oceans can reabsorb that CO2, they can absorb any other CO2.Plants desperately need more CO2 to grow on. Their growth increases substantially when more CO2 is provided. The oceans had to be large to aquify the planet, but then they absorbed too much CO2 for good plant growth.


Water vapor is a a greenhouse gas which is far more significant than carbon dioxide, because there is about a hundred times as much of it in the air, depending upon humidity.Its primary effect is to reflect radiation.It produces a highly varied effect which swamps the significance of carbon dioxide.Since carbon dioxide absorbs and re-emits radiation, rather than reflects it, the radiation is sent in all directions, and only a small percent would be sent back towards the earth.Also,only a very narrow band of wavelengths is absorbed by CO2.
Compare the numbers to water vapor.There's less than 1% as many molecules of CO2; it absorbs less than 1% of the radiation; and it sends less than 10% back to earth.That's 100 x 100 x 10 times less effective than water vapor, which totals one million times less effective.If a cloudy day changes the temperature by 10 degrees, carbon dioxide would be a millionth as effective,which would be 0.00001 degrees.The quantities are absurd.
Concerning carbon dioxide, the amount in the air is unrelated to the amount produced.Ocean temperatures determine how much is in the air. An equilibrium is created at the ocean surface, and it regulates the amount in the air.So if there is more carbon dioxide in the air, it means ocean surfaces are warming.
Propagandists sometimes claim that the oceans are not absorbing the CO2 that humans create.If not, then the oceans are not in equilibrium. If the oceans are not in equilibrium, humans are in big trouble, because there is 200 times as much CO2 in the surface oceans and 7,000 times as much in the deep oceans compared to the amount humans produce.A nonsteady state for such large quantities would swamp the atmospheric effects. The fact that there is so little variation in atmospheric CO2 over the centuries demonstrates that it is regulated.

The polar ice caps are melting, but water temperature is the primary cause. Another indication of water temperatures increasing is increased rainfall in the upper plains over the past twenty years.The humid air originates in the Pacific Ocean, which must be getting warmer.The cause of the oceans warming cannot be the atmosphere, which has very low heat capacity, but must be due to heat from within the earth's core,as described on other pages dealing with climate and the earth's core.The globe is heating, but the cause is hot spots rotating in the earth's core and heating the oceans, not greenhouse gases. This can be known from the fact that the past 10 ice ages have cycled at 100 thousands year intervals.


(for more information visit the earth science section at world-mysteries.com)

OK, lots of stuff there, lets focus on one issue at a time...

Originally posted by jakyll
1)The atmosphere is only 0.04% carbon dioxide, of which only 3% stems from human activity. Therefore, human activity cannot create global warming stemming from carbon dioxide, though natural causes of global warming certainly can exist.

This is incorrect. According to ice-core data, for 650,000 yrs Co2 never got much over 300ppm. It was fairly level at 280ppm for the last 2000 yrs, it is now over 380ppm.

5)Only around 380 parts per million of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide.Only 3% of the CO2 results from human activity.Only about 2-5% of the infrared radiation can be absorbed by a greenhouse gas, as shown by the IR absorption spectrum, which consists of a narrow band of frequencies.The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not determined by production, because it is regulated by the oceans. Cold oceans absorbs more, and warm oceans release more back into the atmosphere.The 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past century indicates oceans heating (due to other causes), and it is too minuscule to be relevant. It is an indicator, not cause, of oceans heating.

See above. We are responsible for about 30% increase in CO2. That's just one GHG. We also can take much of the blame for other GHGs.

CO2 is regulated by the oceans, they are removing about 25% of what we release every year. Another 25% is taken up by the terrestrial biosphere. However, the other 50% is sufficient to account for the yearly global rise.

CO2 can account for around 8-24% of the earth's greenhouse effect. The range is due to overlapping absorption with other GHGs.

6)Air has a much lower heat capacity than water, which means oceans can heat the air, but the air cannot significantly heat the oceans.Water in the air is a greenhouse gas which swamps the others. It is about a hundred times more prevalent than CO2 in clear air, and millions of times more significant on a cloudy day. Yet moisture only changes temperatures about 10-20 degrees on a cloudy day. This means CO2 must be changing temperatures less than 0.000001 degrees all of the time.

Water accounts for more of the GE effect than CO2, however, it is not a forcing.

7)When el Nino heats the Pacific, CO2 increases in the atmosphere; and after El Nino, it normalizes. It wouldn't normalize if oceans were not reabsorbing the CO2. And if oceans can reabsorb that CO2, they can absorb any other CO2.Plants desperately need more CO2 to grow on. Their growth increases substantially when more CO2 is provided. The oceans had to be large to aquify the planet, but then they absorbed too much CO2 for good plant growth.

Yes, and what is released is taken up elsewhere. The oceans are a net sink for CO2. Thus, there is no real source from oceans at this point

Water vapor is a a greenhouse gas which is far more significant than carbon dioxide, because there is about a hundred times as much of it in the air

Not really. It is the most important due to its vast concentration in the atmosphere, but for its smaller atmospheric concentration, CO2 packs a good greenhouse punch. Water vapour is bound to temperature, it is pure feedback. Our CO2 does accumulate and will hang around for a very long time, leading to a forcing of climate. That is, warming.

[edit on 15-9-2007 by melatonin]

The earth gets hotter and colder on its own,it does not need mankind to do it.What humans have put it into the atmosphere is nothing compared to what the earth does to itself.

Volcanic activity alone releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million tons) of carbon dioxide each year!! Now think of how many volcanoes have erupted just in recorded history,then compare that pollution to our output.

The last great ice age started to recede between 14,000-10,000 years ago,from that very moment the earth started to get warmer!!
Can you blame man for that??

If you understand how ice ages happen,you will understand why they recede.Mankind could stop polluting altogether,but it will not end the cycle of the earth.History has shown many times that without human interference this planet has gone through great periods of change,and it will continue to do so!!




[edit on 15-9-2007 by jakyll]

Originally posted by jakyll
The earth gets hotter and colder on its own,it does not need mankind to do it.What humans have put it into the atmosphere is nothing compared to what the earth does to itself.

I never said it didn't. I'm just questioning some of your claims.

Volcanic activity alone releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million tons) of carbon dioxide each year!! Now think of how many volcanoes have erupted just in recorded history,then compare that pollution to our output.

And we release about 7GtC, which is about 26 billion tonnes of CO2 every single year, and rising. Volcanic output is a drop in the ocean compared to human output.

The last great ice age started to recede between 14,000-10,000 years ago,from that very moment the earth started to get warmer!!
Can you blame man for that??

If you understand how ice ages happen,you will understand why they recede.Mankind could stop polluting altogether,but it will not end the cycle of the earth.History has shown many times that without human interference this planet has gone through great periods of change,and it will continue to do so!!

Why would I blame humans for ice-age cycles? I would proportion blame for contributing significantly to the current warming trend. This includes GHGs, but also other human influences.

I understand a bit about ice-ages, and GHGs such as CO2 and methane have a big part ot play in them.

You seem to saying that because climate change is generally natural, therefore human activity cannot have an influence. A bit similar to saying that because most heart attacks are natural, that administering various drugs will not cause a heart attack.

[edit on 15-9-2007 by melatonin]

Oh,thats alright then

I've been trying to upload some graphs of ice core data but me bloody computer is acting up again

I know it seems like i'm saying we can do nothing,and i know our actions have not helped the planet at all.But we cannot control the earths temperature any more than we can stop earthquakes or tsunamis!

I'm just trying to get people to see,that yes we pollute,but we have only done so on a global scale since around the time of the Industrial Revolution,a few 100 years! Compare that with nature's 100's of 1000's of years!and you wonder why some people are blaming mankind only.



[edit on 15-9-2007 by jakyll]

Originally posted by jakyll
I'm just trying to get people to see,that yes we pollute,but we have only done so on a global scale since around the time of the Industrial Revolution,a few 100 years! Compare that with nature's 100's of 1000's of years!and you wonder why some people are blaming mankind only.

Well, I think it's a case that past climate changes are of little consequence to what is happening now. Apart from the knowledge we can gain.

Maybe some people do proportion all blame to humans for the warming of the last 100 years, if they do, they are wrong. There is some natural variation, and some human. But, we can only really affect one of these causes. If we continue to emit like we are, and the predictions are correct, we are in for a bumpy-ride - humans, that is, as I don't think I'll be around to worry too much about it.

Although, I will say I'm not a 'catastrophist' or 'alarmist'. I don't know whether our effects will be really catastrophic, I think we will be taking big risks if we ignore the science, however.

[edit on 15-9-2007 by melatonin]

Not sure whoich ice-core data you're after, but here's some of the data:

CO2 400kyr



CO2 & Temps 400kyr



........................................................



[edit on 15-9-2007 by melatonin]

by melatonin

Although, I will say I'm not a 'catastrophist' or 'alarmist'. I don't know whether our effects will be really catasthrophic, I think we will be taking big risks if we ignore the science, however.

I've been called similar,think its because i say things like,"we're all goin to hell in a hand basket."

I think the problem right now is,most people only know from what they read in the paper or watch on the news,and as it is usually biased we've got a lot of "extremists" shoving their oar in.I mean,being told to put your washing machine on a lower setting,wtf!! yeah,and end up doing it twice coz once doesn't get it clean!
I know planes cause a lot of pollution,but i object to people telling me i can't go on holiday because doing so makes me an "enviromental terrorist."

In a magazine they had then and now pictures of the north pole.The one from the 50's showed a desolate inhospitable wasteland,the one from last year showed lakes,plants and streams,all things that can sustain life!

-----------------------------
Fixed quote by replacing 'code' tags and added member quoted.

Note: 'code' tags stretch page

[edit on 16/9/07 by masqua]

reply to post by melatonin


Thanks for the graphs.The one i was trying to load is similar to the 2nd one.I'll add it as a link.

Secondly, I think the data suggests that the warming of the oceans is not due to geothermal activity. Studies have assessed the warming with depth, and show that it is coming from above, not below:


Taken from Fukasawa et al., 2004

Thus, much of the warming is at the top layers of the oceans, suggesting heating from above. More of the same here:

Science 24 March 2000:
Vol. 287. no. 5461, pp. 2225 - 2229
DOI: 10.1126/science.287.5461.2225
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Research Articles

Warming of the World Ocean
Sydney Levitus, * John I. Antonov, Timothy P. Boyer, Cathy Stephens

We quantify the interannual-to-decadal variability of the heat content (mean temperature) of the world ocean from the surface through 3000-meter depth for the period 1948 to 1998. The heat content of the world ocean increased by ~2 × 1023 joules between the mid-1950s and mid-1990s, representing a volume mean warming of 0.06°C. This corresponds to a warming rate of 0.3 watt per meter squared (per unit area of Earth's surface). Substantial changes in heat content occurred in the 300- to 1000-meter layers of each ocean and in depths greater than 1000 meters of the North Atlantic. The global volume mean temperature increase for the 0- to 300-meter layer was 0.31°C, corresponding to an increase in heat content for this layer of ~1023 joules between the mid-1950s and mid-1990s. The Atlantic and Pacific Oceans have undergone a net warming since the 1950s and the Indian Ocean has warmed since the mid-1960s, although the warming is not monotonic.

www.sciencemag.org...


[edit on 15-9-2007 by melatonin]

Another thing that has a huge impact on our planet is the sun,especially solar flares.Last year NASA recorded 9 gigantic flares and 7 of them hit the earth directly!

Many destructive weather patterns can be linked not just to the earth itself,but also to a solar flare hitting us.

Originally posted by jakyll
Another thing that has a huge impact on our planet is the sun,especially solar flares.Last year NASA recorded 9 gigantic flares and 7 of them hit the earth directly!

Many destructive weather patterns can be linked not just to the earth itself,but also to a solar flare hitting us.

Solar flares have been occurring all along with only some increase in frequency and intensity. The energy although high is not retained more than a few planetary rotations, but I will say the radiation of heat is now slower due to the GHGs. Why news and some scientist would use this as an excuse is beyond me. It's like saying that the flash from a dying light bulb is fading my carpets.

Using the term "direct-hit" is more at buzz wording (not hitting on the OP, but the media source whence it came. Depending on angles and trajectories the Planets may receive more of less of the radiation. From a standpoint of none to full impact is what we are wanting to know. Either way, it's a short-term burst which dissipates within hours to weeks. These events would have to occur daily to have enough impact considering the number that we would miss.

[edit on 9/16/2007 by AlabamaCajun]

Originally posted by jakyll

I think the problem right now is,most people only know from what they read in the paper or watch on the news

Exactly.

You should first read the IPCC 4AR SPM to get a proper understanding of how and why it's believed human activity is causing GW:

ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu...

Also, the ISPM produced in response by sceptics who actually understand the issues:

www.uoguelph.ca...

Which explains why some dispute some of the conclusions made by the IPCC

Media and political commentary is mostly uninformed speculation and best avoided

Thanks for the links,hadn't had a chance to look at them properly yet,but will do.

Found an interesting page and web site,which you can have a look at if your interested.Talks about many things,not just global warming.

Originally posted by jakyll
Thanks for the links,hadn't had a chance to look at them properly yet,but will do.

Found an interesting page and web site,which you can have a look at if your interested.Talks about many things,not just global warming.

Sorry that site blows all credibility on politics (Name Calling, Finger pointing etc) no science there. Look around you, you may be looking at the planet as it still exists today, but too much in changing. Remember the "God Joke" about sending a Big Truck, Boat and Helicopter and the man still drowned ...

I am aware that you get name calling and finger pointing by some people on that site,kinda how politicians and scientists do in the news.But if you sift through all that to those who have actually done research,you find some interesting information.