It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Global warming controversial: "Temperature vs CO2: which is the cause and which is the effect?"

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Jeremy Shakun, paleoclimate researcher of Harvard University contradict global warming skeptics that says ‘Obviously CO2 doesn’t cause warming because it came after the warming in these records’.
But these ice cores only tell you about temperatures in Antarctica. For the same reason that you don’t look at just one thermometer from London or New York to prove or disprove global warming, you don’t want to look at just one spot in the map to reconstruct the past either....


The 800,000 year record of atmospheric CO2 from Antarctic ice cores, and a reconstruction of temperature based on hydrogen isotopes in the ice. The current CO2 concentration of 392 parts per million (ppm) is shown by the blue star. Credit: Jeremy Shakun/Harvard University


Previous data suggesting that the world started warming out of the last ice age before CO2 levels in the atmosphere started rising don’t show the full picture. That’s according to US, French and Chinese scientists who have added to those Antarctic measurements with more taken from 80 locations across the globe. Harvard University’s Jeremy Shakun and colleagues show the greenhouse gas rises before temperature, supporting the case that CO2 drove climate change then, as it is now. “This provides a very tangible example of what rising CO2 can mean for the climate over the long term,” Jeremy said.



Atmospheric CO2 (green line and scale) versus Antarctic temperature (red line and scale) and global temperature (blue dots and scale). Global temperature is linked to and generally lags behind CO2, unlike Antarctic temperature. ppmv stands for parts per million by volume. As the Antarctic temperature is an average of five records its is shown in standard deviation units (σ) rather than degrees. Credit: Harvard University/Jeremy Shakun

Read the whole controversial paper here: Global view answers ice age CO2 puzzle
edit on 4-4-2012 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 

And this is a pure biased study where they swapped the graphs around. Other ICE CORE based proxies shows the exact opposite.
This shows again that these bastards go as low as to even manipulate the data to fit their predictions.
Especially weird how they managed to do this using ice age/interglacial periods which are modulated by the milankovich cycles/orbital changes. No way these temperatures are driven by co2.

Also a pure LIE that skeptics were talking about temperatures in other areas, when we have been quoting antarctic and greenland ice cores for ages, the same exact data that global warming crowd used to start this whole hoax.

This is even something they even later admitted they were wrong with but then they instead claimed that co2 amplified warming when it lagged BEHIND temperatures.
edit on 4-4-2012 by juleol because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
what about methane ? CO2 is just part of the problem, and I think people who focus just on CO2 have an agenda and are trying to skew the facts



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   
CO2 is less than one percent (1%) of the total atmosphere, so I just cannot get my head around how so little can have so much effect, just does not make any sense to me at all, in any case humans put out less crud into the atmosphere than what the 'natural' world does, Termites put out more Methane than cows belch! and Humans fart Hydrogen Sulphide, not Methane, which is human farts stink. Scientists? Bah.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


The thing that makes me the most skeptical of man made global warming (there are many) is the fact that the weather predictions for even a week in advance are often wrong! The further away from the day in question the more probability they have of being wrong! Yet people can predict what will happen in 100 years? Using computer models? Nah, not buying it...

Also Co2 is often pumped into green houses in agriculture to improve growth and yield! I can't remember the exact article I read but I remember the amount being something like 3 times that of ambient levels! It's also used in the cultivation of a plant we are not allowed to talk about!


Also the proposed plans of how to deal with it give it away! Taxing companies will not effect co2 levels one bit! So a company gets hit with a large co2 bill, what will they do? Pass on that cost to the end user! Simple! They will not slow down production because of it, that's for sure!

It's just another stealth tax that is basically setting up the scene for when they literally tax our breathing! It could also prove as an excuse to bring in other laws such as one child per family or something similar! All in the name of saving the planet!

If the politicians were serious and thought we're all gonna die in floods etc. Wouldn't they just ban fossil fuels outright? I mean even if that did crash the whole economy, we would still survive at least!

As usual, it's all about money, money, money!



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by juleol
 

Oh dear a typical response from somebody who hasn't a clue about cause and effect and the difference between triggers mechanism and feedback mechanisms.

Once you UNDERSTAND what a trigger mechanism is and the effect that CO2 feedback has then you will understand the temperature leading C02 in the historical record. Man , in his infinite wisdom, has been burning foddil fuels and releasing CO2 and thus CO2 has become a TRIGGER and then feedback starts and thus CO2 lead temperature in todays charts. The CO2 feedback cycle is only just starting and we are screwed when it really kicks in.

It's actually very very simple if you read the scientific literature....ALL OF IT....with an open mind.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


What problem? There is no proven "problem" to begin with! The earth has had ice ages and warm periods before! The climate of the world is constantly changing! People focus on Co2 because that's what the TPTB always goes on about!

Show me the so called problem, and I'll go back through history and show you a million others just like it!



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mee30
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


The thing that makes me the most skeptical of man made global warming (there are many) is the fact that the weather predictions for even a week in advance are often wrong! The further away from the day in question the more probability they have of being wrong! Yet people can predict what will happen in 100 years? Using computer models? Nah, not buying it...

Weather is NOT climate how many times do we have to repeat this......

The climate models are getting more accurate. There isn't just one and they take an average. The true extent of the problem is hidden (yes it really is) because it is far too frightening. But hey as long as you re happy!


Also Co2 is often pumped into green houses in agriculture to improve growth and yield! I can't remember the exact article I read but I remember the amount being something like 3 times that of ambient levels! It's also used in the cultivation of a plant we are not allowed to talk about!


You're having a laugh....surely. guess what Ozone is good for us in the upper atmosphere it helps with UV so surely we should have more....yes let's have more at ground level....oh hang on it's poisonous. The same chemical in different circumstances can be both beneficial and a hazard. DUH!


Also the proposed plans of how to deal with it give it away! Taxing companies will not effect co2 levels one bit! So a company gets hit with a large co2 bill, what will they do? Pass on that cost to the end user! Simple! They will not slow down production because of it, that's for sure!

It's just another stealth tax that is basically setting up the scene for when they literally tax our breathing! It could also prove as an excuse to bring in other laws such as one child per family or something similar! All in the name of saving the planet!

Not one red cent has reached the end price of a product due to CO2 taxes. Sure, fossil fuel taxes have gone up under the guise of reducing consumption (an indirect Co2 tax at best) but that is more to do with conning the public to raise government revenues.

One child per family frighteners....now you are getting desperate.


If the politicians were serious and thought we're all gonna die in floods etc. Wouldn't they just ban fossil fuels outright? I mean even if that did crash the whole economy, we would still survive at least!

As usual, it's all about money, money, money!


Yes it's all about money money money which is why the anti GW campaign is funded by big oil look it up. Governments need fuel tax revenue and is why politicians love to have an excuse to NOT do something and love skeptics, especially in the US.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by yorkshirelad

Originally posted by mee30
reply to post by elevenaugust
 



Weather is NOT climate how many times do we have to repeat this......

The climate models are getting more accurate. There isn't just one and they take an average. The true extent of the problem is hidden (yes it really is) because it is far too frightening. But hey as long as you re happy!



Well thats funny because when I see the weather they often talk about the climate! The climate models are getting more accurate? Really? So you have been in a time machine and looked into the future? Fascinating!


You're having a laugh....surely. guess what Ozone is good for us in the upper atmosphere it helps with UV so surely we should have more....yes let's have more at ground level....oh hang on it's poisonous. The same chemical in different circumstances can be both beneficial and a hazard. DUH!



My point was that plant life can thrive better in environments of higher Co2 levels! They would therefore use up more co2! Thus leveling things out! The earth has a way of doing that. What that has to do with the ozone layer I don't know. Are you saying that Co2 is in the ozone layer or something?


Not one red cent has reached the end price of a product due to CO2 taxes. Sure, fossil fuel taxes have gone up under the guise of reducing consumption (an indirect Co2 tax at best) but that is more to do with conning the public to raise government revenues.

One child per family frighteners....now you are getting desperate.



Not one penny? Prove this please! From what I see prices are going up for everything! "but that is more to do with conning the public to raise government revenues." So what is to stop them conning the public about the whole Co2 fiasco?

So people in power have not talked about over population? No country has ever imposed one child families? Yeah the notion is totally ridiculous!


Yes it's all about money money money which is why the anti GW campaign is funded by big oil look it up. Governments need fuel tax revenue and is why politicians love to have an excuse to NOT do something and love skeptics, especially in the US.



What the hell are you talking about here? Politicians are the ones pushing the damn Co2 non-sense! I don't care about anti GW campaigns or who funds them! I can use my own reasoning and common sense! Government do not rely on any income at all! They just borrow what they don't have and pass it on to future generations! That's how it's been working for years! What about al gore having ties with carbon trading companies? Oh he has no incentive!

I can see that oil companies would want to stay in business and push anti GW stuff. But the politicians love POWER! And what better power can you have than controlling the very air we breath!

As it happens I think renewable sources of fuel/power are not being used as they should be. But I don't think they should be because of GW! I just think it would create better self sufficiency for people! If the government cares about people, why isn't it putting solar panels on everyones roofs so they can get cheaper to free electricity?
edit on 4-4-2012 by mee30 because: fixing my bad quoting, doh!



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by mee30
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


The thing that makes me the most skeptical of man made global warming (there are many) is the fact that the weather predictions for even a week in advance are often wrong! The further away from the day in question the more probability they have of being wrong! Yet people can predict what will happen in 100 years? Using computer models? Nah, not buying it...

Come on...I don't believe you to be serious.
how do they know what happened in the past when it rained yesterday that was supposed to be sunny?
Weather forecasting is not meteorology, and it certainly not weather science..it is looking at day to day fronts and patterns and making educated guesses...not a hard science.
Anyone whom argues against global warming cause Fred the weatherman ruined their picnic = not trying very hard to understand the science behind GW



Also Co2 is often pumped into green houses in agriculture to improve growth and yield! I can't remember the exact article I read but I remember the amount being something like 3 times that of ambient levels! It's also used in the cultivation of a plant we are not allowed to talk about!


Yes, pumping greenhouse gases into a literal greenhouse makes it nice and warm and tropical, even in the dead of winter.
...and this isn't clewing you in at all?



Also the proposed plans of how to deal with it give it away! Taxing companies will not effect co2 levels one bit! So a company gets hit with a large co2 bill, what will they do? Pass on that cost to the end user! Simple! They will not slow down production because of it, that's for sure!

They aren't trying to slow down production, they are trying to make companies upgrade to put out less emissions in their production. Put some damn filters on. Stop using 1930s technology


Had to stop here..the post just became even less worthy to respond to.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by yorkshirelad
 





Climate encompasses the statistics of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological elemental measurements in a given region over long periods. Climate can be contrasted to weather, which is the present condition of these elements and their variations over shorter periods.


en.wikipedia.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">http...://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate

Sure sounds like weather and climate are interchangeable to me! As it says weather is what is used to describe shorter periods! And the often get these shorter periods wrong! Yet you think they can predict it better with a longer time span? My point still stands!

Look it's obvious that you have bought into it all hook line and sinker. I'm not going to change your opinion and you're not going to change mine, so is there much point to this debate?



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by pikestaff
CO2 is less than one percent (1%) of the total atmosphere, so I just cannot get my head around how so little can have so much effect, just does not make any sense to me at all, in any case humans put out less crud into the atmosphere than what the 'natural' world does, Termites put out more Methane than cows belch! and Humans fart Hydrogen Sulphide, not Methane, which is human farts stink. Scientists? Bah.

Not to mention that it has been in thousands of ppm range during most of earths history, without any catastrophic global warming. We even had ice ages start while co2 was way higher than current levels.

Even during the times when Earth was "hotter" it was not any hotter in equator areas. The only reason the average temp was higher was because climate was more stable with less difference between temperatures in polar areas and equator.
There was a time when we had palm trees in arctic at around 80 degrees north, where we today only have tundra. Even though it was sub tropical in arctic, the hottest regions on earth today was actually a little bit colder.
Also deserts/droughts and such are mainly a thing that happens during colder periods like the one we are in currently.

So even if global warming was real the only real threat would be rising sea levels, which is something we can easily prepare for.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by yorkshirelad
reply to post by juleol
 

Oh dear a typical response from somebody who hasn't a clue about cause and effect and the difference between triggers mechanism and feedback mechanisms.

Once you UNDERSTAND what a trigger mechanism is and the effect that CO2 feedback has then you will understand the temperature leading C02 in the historical record. Man , in his infinite wisdom, has been burning foddil fuels and releasing CO2 and thus CO2 has become a TRIGGER and then feedback starts and thus CO2 lead temperature in todays charts. The CO2 feedback cycle is only just starting and we are screwed when it really kicks in.

It's actually very very simple if you read the scientific literature....ALL OF IT....with an open mind.

This was not what this discussion was about. Re read my reply. This new study claims that co2 rose BEFORE temperatures which is a pure lie as every other study has shown the OPPOSITE.
And by the way i have actually read the actual scientific studies instead of the spin presented by mainstream media.
And even what you say about co2 being a trigger, is not very realistic either as the long term data just does not show any such effect. The effect from co2 seems to be completely dwarfed by natural fluctuations in climate.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by mee30
reply to post by elevenaugust
 



Come on...I don't believe you to be serious.
how do they know what happened in the past when it rained yesterday that was supposed to be sunny?
Weather forecasting is not meteorology, and it certainly not weather science..it is looking at day to day fronts and patterns and making educated guesses...not a hard science.
Anyone whom argues against global warming cause Fred the weatherman ruined their picnic = not trying very hard to understand the science behind GW



Err actually dude in the UK they have a new fangled super computer to predict the weather! I remember when it was first launched some years ago! It was wrong the first day... It isn't too dissimilar to what they are doing with climate "science" Which is still just guessing! They will even say they do not know what will happen exactly! That's why they are called PREDICTIONS! But hey you go ahead and belittle all you want.


Yes, pumping greenhouse gases into a literal greenhouse makes it nice and warm and tropical, even in the dead of winter.
...and this isn't clewing you in at all?



Well I have to say that I nearly burst out laughing at this one! So let's get this straight, you think they pump in Co2 to raise the temps? Ha Ha Ha, that's a cracker mate! You do realize that heating is provided by the damn greenhouse don't you? And that temps will be controlled by heating systems and fans where necessary! Have you forgotten that plants breath in Co2? In-fact they live on the damn stuff!

You also think that more heat = bigger crops/yield? lol... Have you ever grown anything in your life?


They aren't trying to slow down production, they are trying to make companies upgrade to put out less emissions in their production. Put some damn filters on. Stop using 1930s technology



Did I say they were trying to slow down production? Filters have been fitted to most companies already dude! And even if what you say is true they could just make it LAW to install filters! No taxation needed!


Had to stop here..the post just became even less worthy to respond to.



Well I have to say from the quality of your reply, I'm gutted!

edit on 4-4-2012 by mee30 because: fixing the quotes, hopefully...

edit on 4-4-2012 by mee30 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


"Yes, pumping greenhouse gases into a literal greenhouse makes it nice and warm and tropical, even in the dead of winter.
...and this isn't clewing you in at all?"

Just to further debunk this with a little more logic... They pump co2 into rooms for the purpose of gaining more yield of the forbidden plant! These plants are not in greenhouses! They are normally in sealed units where everything is controlled! They actually pump the hot air OUT as to not fry the plants! lol

The Co2 being pumped in is to FEED the plants! If you're really interested I'll dig out the article I'm referring to, though I doubt you'll read it! Co2 is the nasty for you and thats it! Right?

Btw in the article it said that although too much co2 was bad for the plants, 1000ppm was the ideal amount... The worst problems they had was with too little co2! Yes, too little co2 produced pretty much no crop!!!!

Starting to get the picture?
edit on 4-4-2012 by mee30 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mee30
reply to post by SaturnFX
 



Yes, pumping greenhouse gases into a literal greenhouse makes it nice and warm and tropical, even in the dead of winter.
...and this isn't clewing you in at all?



Just to further debunk this with a little more logic... They pump co2 into rooms for the purpose of gaining more yield of the forbidden plant! These plants are not in greenhouses! They are normally in sealed units where everything is controlled! They actually pump the hot air OUT as to not fry the plants! lol

The Co2 being pumped in is to FEED the plants! If you're really interested I'll dig out the article I'm referring to, though I doubt you'll read it! Co2 is the nasty for you and thats it! Right?

Btw in the article it said that although too much co2 was bad for the plants, 1000ppm was the ideal amount... The worst problems they had was with too little co2! Yes, too little co2 produced pretty much no crop!!!!

Starting to get the picture?


Yes, was being a simpleton in this response. greenhouse gas is an insulation gas...sunlight and windowpanes = the source. the CO regulates and absorbs the heat, allowing for things to remain as is for longer than other gases...and yes, its also plant nom.

But, it does insulate..hense why its called a greenhouse gas to begin with. (many things are though..including oxygen
some quick notes on greenhouse gas:

A greenhouse gas (sometimes abbreviated GHG) is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect. The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. In the Solar System, the atmospheres of Venus, Mars, and Titan also contain gases that cause greenhouse effects. Greenhouse gases greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; without them, Earth's surface would be on average about 33 °C (59 °F) colder than at present.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


You put "yes it's also plant nom" as though that is the secondary reason for co2! lol That is the primary reason! Without it, no plant life! Not as we know it any way.

As I understand it, the greenhouse effect of co2 isn't even that great! Water vapor for example is far superior! I wonder when the government will put a tax on clouds?

I do like the fact that you semi admitted you were wrong there though.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by mee30
Water vapor for example is far superior! I wonder when the government will put a tax on clouds?


Not to worry...we aren't warming the oceans up..thereby causing more water vapor.

oh..wait...we are..oops.
so..ya, global warming on..and yes, we will be taxed for clouds



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Non of what you said here proves that WE are the cause for the warming! And if vapor is being increased by the increase of sea temps then wouldn't that spiral out of control? You know as water vapor has a bigger greenhouse effect?

What gets me is that this planet has survived for billions of years without our interference! But we are so egotistical that we believe we know best! That we can effect what happens on this planet!

Where is the sun in all this? I don't know about you but when the sun comes out it gets hot! That is what evaporates the water! Isn't it? I'm fairly certain co2 doesn't evaporate water. And as I've said if water vapor is a bigger greenhouse gas, wouldn't the normal water vapor (without our co2 input) make the temps go up and thus increase the evaporation process?

I don't think this planet is as fragile as they like us to think! It has all sorts of mechanisms to protect itself!



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by mee30
Water vapor for example is far superior! I wonder when the government will put a tax on clouds?


Not to worry...we aren't warming the oceans up..thereby causing more water vapor.

oh..wait...we are..oops.
so..ya, global warming on..and yes, we will be taxed for clouds



But if lots of clouds are made wouldn't that make the Earth cooler ?????

That's probably why the planet has survived for 4.5 Billion years.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join