Even more evidence of the utter junk science from the Global Warning crowd. (party, government)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, people like you are the scary ones ... the ones who allow themselves to be convinced that CO2 is a poison. Might as well outlaw oxygen too, because that is what you are saying ... even if you don't realize it.
You see, it's like this ... CO2 is necessary for life on earth. Plants breath CO2 (like we breath oxygen). Plants then emit oxygen that we need to survive. It's a nice arrangement.
The fact that Arctic ice core records show that higher CO2 are the result of warming periods, and not the other way around proves that CO2 isn't the cause of warming ... it's the result. And those CO2 levels don't rise for about 400 years after such a warming period. Therefore, it should not take too much brain power to understand that the whole man made global warming nonsense couldn't possibly be true. It's totally backwards.
Not only that, but higher CO2 levels are actually associated with very prosperous periods in history, including the medieval warm period. The warmer it is, the more abundant life is due to the increased and expanded growing seasons and regions. So global warming itself is not a bad thing at all .. it is actually a good thing, and it's all driven by the sun.
The most predominant mechanism at work here, according to real science is the oceans. Cold water absorbs CO2, while warmer water releases CO2 in the atmosphere. But it doesn't happen overnight. It takes hundreds of years of warm periods to raise the temperature of the oceans even a degree or 2, so after that, the oceans release CO2, resulting in an increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. During cooling periods, the oceans begin to cool down and absorb more CO2, slowly decreasing those CO2 levels.
What then causes the warming and cooling periods? It's the bloody sun. The real science has charted a direct correlation between cyclic solar activity and the matching cycles of warming and cooling periods. That's the real science, and it's all out there and available to research.
There is no excuse for remaining ignorant. And certainly no excuse for continuing to try to convince others to join you.
The topic is Global warming or more specifically is CO2 and other greenhouse gases causing it, CO2 is not a pollutant. If you want to call it a pollutant I can justify calling water vapor a pollutant.
What initially caused most of this fervor in the first place is that the levels of CO2 (from what I've read in several instances) are vastly higher than in recorded history, possibly a million or so years prior. CO2 does vary over the course of a long period of years and it does appear to correlate to net global heating and cooling. As we all know *sarcasm* correlation does not necessarily equate to causation.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that's an undisputed fact. Levels of greenhouses gases are directly proportional to the temperature of the air in the troposphere (the section of atmosphere closest to the surface). So based on these facts alone, one could postulate that increasing levels of CO2 would lead to global warming. What this leaves out however is the fact that if Earth heats up, there is an increase in cloud formation. Increased clouds would actually have a net cooling effect by blocking the sun.
These are the facts I know from studying climate science in school. The result of this all is that there are definitive facts about the effects of CO2, but at the same time there is a lot of uncertainty. I'm just tired of how climate science is treated as black and white (global warming will spell the end of humanity vs. all scientists are liars being paid off) rather than the truly grey science it is that warrants continued study.
As someone who is studying said time period, I can tell you that you are wrong.
Lets see now. Are you talking about the 30 years ago time period, the time when the US was covered with ice, or what. In your words I think that it would be a good idea to say "Proof". What is your proof, you word or do you have something from your studies. You need to prove what you say when you are refuting someone else.
The topic is Global warming or more specifically is CO2 and other greenhouse gases causing it, CO2 is not a pollutant. If you want to call it a pollutant I can justify calling water vapor a pollutant.
But hasn't the EPA declared CO 2 to be a pollutant? Yes, we agree but they have the power and not us.
What initially caused most of this fervor in the first place is that the levels of CO2 (from what I've read in several instances) are vastly higher than in recorded history, possibly a million or so years prior.
This is the propaganda that is totally false. Core ice samples show that in the past, there have been far greater levels of CO2, as much as 10 times the amounts seen today, yet the ice collected is still there, and has been for hundreds of thousands of years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Impala26
CO2 does vary over the course of a long period of years and it does appear to correlate to net global heating and cooling. As we all know *sarcasm* correlation does not necessarily equate to causation.
Again, CO2 levels show a rise some 400 years AFTER a warming period. So yes, you could say there is a correlation, but the correlation is exactly the opposite .. and proves that it is the warming that drives CO2 levels higher, not the other way around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Impala26
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that's an undisputed fact. Levels of greenhouses gases are directly proportional to the temperature of the air in the troposphere (the section of atmosphere closest to the surface). So based on these facts alone, one could postulate that increasing levels of CO2 would lead to global warming.
Totally preposterous. First, CO2 makes up .054% of the gasses in the atmosphere, and human produced CO2 accounts for just a fraction of that amount. 95% of the "greenhouse gasses" is water vapor. Unless you suggest we eliminate water (of which the planet surface is 70%) your postulations are rather laughable. And again, climate science shows that CO2 levels increase AFTER a warming period, and not before ... what part of this do you not understand? You can't ignore this and pretend it doesn't exist ... you either disagree or your CO2 caused warming falls flat on it's face. Furthermore, the entire "greenhouse gas" theory is suspect since the model indicates that if the warming is caused by the greenhouse effect, the temperature of the troposphere (10 kilometers up) would be rising more rapidly than surface temperatures. Both satellite and weather balloon temperature data shows this is not happening. The data suggests that the warming is not the result of the green house effect, and certainly not due to CO2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Impala26
What this leaves out however is the fact that if Earth heats up, there is an increase in cloud formation. Increased clouds would actually have a net cooling effect by blocking the sun.
These are the facts I know from studying climate science in school. The result of this all is that there are definitive facts about the effects of CO2, but at the same time there is a lot of uncertainty. I'm just tired of how climate science is treated as black and white (global warming will spell the end of humanity vs. all scientists are liars being paid off) rather than the truly grey science it is that warrants continued study.
Insofar as Arctic ice core samples prove that rises in atmospheric CO2 follows warming periods, rather than preceding them, without exception, the theory of CO2 caused global warming is Black & White. It's simply not possible.
I'm just tired of how climate science is treated as black and white (global warming will spell the end of humanity vs. all scientists are liars being paid off) rather than the truly grey science it is that warrants continued study.
Effect of politics meddling its disgusting head where it shouldn't be.
Lets see now. Are you talking about the 30 years ago time period, the time when the US was covered with ice, or what. In your words I think that it would be a good idea to say "Proof". What is your proof, you word or do you have something from your studies. You need to prove what you say when you are refuting someone else.
12,000 years ago is not the same as 30.
What do you even do for a living, sell pencils out of the back of your car?
What do you even do for a living, sell pencils out of the back of your car?
Within the first five minutes it's clear it's not reliable.
As well as the website that the Youtube user posted with it.
Your Proof ... or maybe you could try just being SPECIFIC ... rather than nana-nana-boo-boo ?
You asked for proof ... that film ... all six parts include testimony and data from the worlds leading experts in the fields of climate research, many of which were leading scientists on the United Nations IPCC whom the IPCC says (quite fraudulently) that they agree with man made global warming, when in fact they do not support it.
They provide evidence including data from the past 100 years, 1000 years, and 10,000 years that all agree and are consistent.
Man made global warming is an unmitigated fraud, without a shred of legitimate evidence to support it.
Actually we do. Real Science doesn't hide and protect it's data from peer review.
Course, there is such a thing as "classified science", same as classified inventions, that stay out of peer, or public, scrutiny.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
