Global Warming Slowdown Is Not Good News

reply to post by Tinkerpeach



"No data exists which shows how much humans are contributing.

Its a guesstimate."


Actually a lot of data exists. The only people still denying Global Warming being a clear and present danger to the continued existence of life on this planet are the Daily Mail, a few other assorted tabloids, and a handful of pseudo-scientists cranking out 'evidence' bought and paid for by the oil industry.

And apparently a couple of dozen people on this website who fall for it and fail to read the mountains of data which demonstrate the man-made warming of the planet.

greencmp

Kali74
reply to post by greencmp

 

My main complaint is the brazen globalization agenda using carbon dioxide as the excuse. It was a poorly planned ruse, if it was me I would have at least picked a greenhouse gas like methane. It really does tend to argue against the competence of the architects of the NWO.

Illustrate this for us please.

That the global carbon trading agenda is one of many tools for potentially implementing a world government.

Carbon dioxide is not a significant greenhouse gas while methane is and it is being released from the ocean floor in huge quantities. Why that isn't being brought up speaks to the reliance upon anthropomorphic global warming. You can't blame it on people's bodily functions and thus no excuse to euthanize the better part of humanity, which I believe is the goal. I cannot say that it is a conspiracy since the UN seems to openly talk about it and it is therefore public knowledge.

I agree that carbon trading won't work, people cling to the idea that it will because it worked with ozone depleting chemicals, the world is different now and what worked then won't work now. That said I fail to see how carbon credit trading will lead to any significant increase in globalization. Every single person that leans on this "agenda" as a reason to deny what's happening, has failed to flesh out any details that lend the notion any credibility.

Methane has always been in the talking points. A thawing Arctic is extremely dangerous because it will allow methane stores to begin releasing. Yes indeed methane is far more dangerous than CO2.

reply to post by Kali74


I know you really tried to find the information, and your little science thing about isotopes is interesting, but the fact is that scientists cannot tell us how much of an impact humans are having on global warming.

That information does not exist.

They cannot tell us what the normal rate of warming is because they do not know. Without knowing the normal rate of warming you cannot predict the amount that human activity is varying it.

It may be a lot or hardly any at all.

What you need to see is something like this:

Scientist: "We know for a fact that all of the permanent ice will be gone by the year 2070 based on previous warming periods and the geological history.

"We now know that because of human contributions to the climate that all of the permanent ice will be gone by 2050".

All you can do is look at some science stuff and guess how much of an impact humans are having. There is no conclusive data yet because not enough time has passed for us to track and collect the information required in order to build empirical models.

Painterz
reply to post by Tinkerpeach

 

"No data exists which shows how much humans are contributing.

Its a guesstimate."


Actually a lot of data exists. The only people still denying Global Warming being a clear and present danger to the continued existence of life on this planet are the Daily Mail, a few other assorted tabloids, and a handful of pseudo-scientists cranking out 'evidence' bought and paid for by the oil industry.

And apparently a couple of dozen people on this website who fall for it and fail to read the mountains of data which demonstrate the man-made warming of the planet.

Nobody is disputing global warming, only the human contribution to that warming.

Tinkerpeach
reply to post by Kali74

 

I know you really tried to find the information, and your little science thing about isotopes is interesting, but the fact is that scientists cannot tell us how much of an impact humans are having on global warming.

That information does not exist.

Yes it does, I just showed you.

They cannot tell us what the normal rate of warming is because they do not know. Without knowing the normal rate of warming you cannot predict the amount that human activity is varying it.

It may be a lot or hardly any at all.

They do know because there are ice cores, sediment cores and tree ring data from which to determine past climate.

reply to post by Kali74


Well then please share with us what the normal rate of warming is compared to what it is with human activity added to it.

Exactly how much have we sped it up?

You state that we know this so I would be very interested to know. I've looked for this information for years and have never found it.

Kali74
reply to post by Tinkerpeach

 

Isotopes are the Key

How can we distinguish between the different sources and sinks of carbon dioxide? Carbon dioxide, or CO2, contains the key piece of information within the carbon atoms themselves. Although it may seem that a carbon atom is just the same as every other carbon atom out there (perhaps they appear to all be clones of each other–where each looks and acts exactly the same), this is not the case.

In fact there are three isotopes of carbon atoms - all three react the same way in chemical reactions–the only chemical difference between them is that they have slightly different masses. The heaviest is carbon-14 (which, in the scientific world, is written as 14C), followed by carbon-13 (13C), and the lightest, most common carbon-12 (12C). Different carbon reservoirs “like” different isotopes, so the relative proportion of the three isotopes is different in each reservoir - each has its own, identifying, isotopic fingerprint. By examining the isotopic mixture in the atmosphere, and knowing the isotopic fingerprint of each reservoir, atmospheric scientists can determine how much carbon dioxide is coming and going from each reservoir, making isotopes an ideal tracer of sources and sinks of carbon dioxide.

NOAA

How can they tell if CO2 is "from fossil fuel use and other sources", or "from deforestation, decay and peat" ?

Isn't CO2 all the same ?

Or is there some kind of distinguishing difference.

reply to post by Tinkerpeach


This is from the Vostok Ice Core sample

As the Vostok temperature plot to the left shows, there is a cycle to the data of approximately 100,000 years. For a detailed Vostok discussion click here. There is about a 10,000 year fast warming period prior to each peak. Then there is a slow 90,000 year cooling slide before the next warming cycle begins. Along the way down there are some minor cycles of significance.

Source

reply to post by xuenchen


Read the 1st part of the post, that will answer your question.

Kali74
reply to post by Tinkerpeach

 

This is from the Vostok Ice Core sample

Call me crazy, but that Vostok ice core data seems to indicate a normal cycle of approx 125,000 year increments of CO2 (unless I am reading the graph wrong). And, we are now on the next natural rise cycle, are we not? That being the case, it would indicate a natural cycle regardless of man's assistance. It could be that we are "helping it along" a bit, but by no means are we solely responsible for the rise (as per the graph you provided).

Global warming isn't the problem, it's the symptom - Global warming is a bit of a misnomer, I prefer climate change, but the problem goes much much deeper. The earth has been around for a long time, and hell, so have we, but our biosphere has never seen anything like the mass industrialization and the human population boom that soon followed. You don't have to look very far to see the effects we have on our environment, just look out your window.

Plant and animal species have been dying off at an incredible rate - Natural habitats are being destroyed everyday, and as a species, we continue to grow at an exponential rate. We've gone from 1.2 billion at the start of industrialization to over 7 billion, and the growth rate is still climbing. All of this has happened in a very very tiny period of time, geologically speaking.

If we keep growing and continue heavy industrialization (we're definitely gonna have to make more stuff to sell to all those babies being born!) we are setting ourselves up for serious disaster. It's like a chain reaction, our environment is very interconnected, and when you whack one out of balance, it effects the others, only we've been seriously polluting the sea, air, and land at an exponential rate.

The real conundrum is, most likely, even if we were to completely dismantle our industrialized civilization (costing billions their lives) tomorrow, we wouldn't be able to reverse the changes that are coming within the next hundred years (maybe sooner, maybe later - hard to make sensible predictions when you're heading into uncharted territories) that may make the earth not so accommodating to complex life - life will go on, whether it will be complex, or just microbial is debatable.

No taxes or carbon credits will save us, hell, no politician or government will save you - their whole mechanism of control, our "global economy", is totally reliant upon exponential growth. The beast we created to help us advance, to grow, the very beast we have come completely reliant upon for our very lives, may be the same beast that kills us - hopefully it doesn't take every other living thing along with us.

reply to post by Krakatoa


No. This is a chart of warming and cooling. The normal cycle is 10,000 years of warming then 90,000 years of cooling.

reply to post by Kali74


With the image so small, I cannot make out eh Y-Axis legend. What is the Y-Axis (as the X-Axis is time)?

It seems to me that whatever is happening with the Earth's climate will only be known for sure when it has become far too late for us to survive it well! Then we will nuke any arable land left in the fight to possess it. That's what we do - squabble and fight and will to the bitter end - bitter being the operative word!

We are rather like toddlers! Loads of ability but little sense to go with it! Not sure how we manage to alter that?

reply to post by Kali74


I hate to tell you this but that core sample only details the last ice-age, of which there have been 5 or 6 that the earth has experienced. As the earth melts the ice it, of course, erases all the ice-core evidence of the last one.

You cannot gauge what is normal from a sample of 1.

Perhaps that ice-core sample was an anomaly and we are currently experiencing a "normal" warming period.

Not enough data.

Psychoparrot
It seems to me that whatever is happening with the Earth's climate will only be known for sure when it has become far too late for us to survive it well! Then we will nuke any arable land left in the fight to possess it. That's what we do - squabble and fight and will to the bitter end - bitter being the operative word!

We are rather like toddlers! Loads of ability but little sense to go with it! Not sure how we manage to alter that?

edit on 24/9/2013 by Psychoparrot because: Correction

Actually, humans will probably do much better after all the ice melts. More land to live on and grow crops, more variety of plants to choose from, more tolerable climates in the northern and southern hemispheres....yes the people living on the coast will have to move inland or build barriers but that's about it.

reply to post by Tinkerpeach


That's not the only sample.

Kali74
reply to post by Tinkerpeach

 

That's not the only sample.

In case you missed it, I'll repeat my question. With the image so small, I cannot make out eh Y-Axis legend. What is the Y-Axis (as the X-Axis is time)?

ETA: Without any answer from Kali, I zoomed into the graph myself, and notice it was a temp rise on the Y-Axis, so I will modify my post below to be more correct in my statement.

Call me crazy, but that Vostok ice core data seems to indicate a normal cycle of approx 125,000 year increments of temperature rise (unless I am reading the graph wrong). And, we are now on the next natural temp rise cycle (whereas the last one was approx 125,000 yrs ago on the graph), are we not? That being the case, it would indicate a natural cycle regardless of man's assistance. It could be that we are "helping it along" a bit, but by no means are we solely responsible for the rise (as per the graph you provided). This rise should be expected, according to the graph you provided.

reply to post by Krakatoa


Sorry.
It's temperature in degrees Celsius.

Kali74
reply to post by Krakatoa

 

Sorry.
It's temperature in degrees Celsius.

Looks like we "passed posts" at the same time, so I will repeat in case it was missed....

Call me crazy, but that Vostok ice core data seems to indicate a normal cycle of approx 125,000 year increments of temperature rise (unless I am reading the graph wrong). And, we are now on the next natural temp rise cycle (whereas the last one was approx 125,000 yrs ago on the graph), are we not? That being the case, it would indicate a natural cycle regardless of man's assistance. It could be that we are "helping it along" a bit, but by no means are we solely responsible for the rise (as per the graph you provided). This rise should be expected, according to the graph you provided.