The Global Warming Hoax is falling apart

[bigdavediode]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I understand that the current talking points are to slander IG Walpin, a respected former prosecutor.

I'm afraid you don't understand the word "slander." I've posted the key facts of the case.

You're getting pretty wildly off-topic here. If you wish to ask any question about global warming, please feel free.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Come on dave, give us a break. Don't repeat misstatements after they have been shown to be false.

What misstatements? First of all "neither Hansen nor the GISS made any such announcement." (about 1998 being the warmest year on record.)

Secondly it wouldn't matter if they did, (which they didn't), since a single year doesn't define a global long term trend.

Let's see a link to their announcement since you say it exists.

Moreover, NASA now also has to admit that three of the five warmest years on record occurred before 1940-it has up until now held that all five of them occurred after 1980.

Here's the data, by year:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt

Look for negative signs after 1996 or so. What do you see?

And perhaps most devastating of all to the man-made global warming backers, it is now admitted that six of the 10 hottest years on record occurred when only 10% of the amount of greenhouse gases that have been emitted in the last century were in the atmosphere.

Since you're varying your measurements to get the results you want (single years, best of five, then best of ten) and using insufficient sample sizes of five and ten, this isn't meaningful, but tell me which years you mean and we'll examine them together.

NASA has been forced to correct calculations for temperatures of the last 120 years taken from ground-based measuring facilities. Critics of the man-made global warming theory have long been vocal that these measurements are distorted because the ground, and even more the urban ground where most of these measurements took place, is warmed considerably by human activities and cannot accurately represent atmospheric conditions.

Too bad there are these things called "satellites."

 

[Arnie]

Quote from TraderZones:

congratulations, as the uninformed go, you are the commander. People who have no grasp of something and try to douse sound science are not debating, they are ignorant.

We will pull it down here again, since you seem incapable of using your back buttons.

===============

Science News Ice Cores Reveal Fluctuations In Earth's Greenhouse Gases

ScienceDaily (May 17, 2008) — The newest analysis of trace gases trapped in Antarctic ice cores now provide a reasonable view of greenhouse gas concentrations as much as 800,000 years into the past, and are further confirming the link between greenhouse gas levels and global warming, scientists reported May 14 in the journal Nature.


They also show that during that entire period of time (800,000 years), there have never been concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane as high as the current levels, said Edward Brook, an associate professor of geosciences at Oregon State University, and author of a Nature commentary on the new studies.

"The fundamental conclusion that today's concentrations of these greenhouse gases have no past analogue in the ice-core record remains firm," Brook said in the report. "The remarkably strong correlations of methane and carbon dioxide with temperature reconstructions also stand."

The latest research, done by members of the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica, extend the data on trace gases back another 150,000 years beyond any studies done prior to this, Brook said. Ultimately, researchers would like to achieve data going back as much as 1.5 million years.

The tiny bubbles of ancient air trapped in polar ice cores have been used to provide records of trace gases in the atmosphere at distant points in the past, and better understand the natural fluctuations that have occurred, largely as a result of cyclical changes in Earth's orbit around the sun.

"These natural cycles that occur on the order of tens or hundreds of thousands of years can help us understand both the forces that have controlled and influenced Earth's climate in the past, and the implications of current changes on future climate" said Brook, who is co-chair of an international group that organizes global studies in this field.

According to the data, the current levels of primary greenhouse gases -- those that are expected to cause global warming - are off the charts.

The concentration of carbon dioxide is now a bit more than 380 parts per million, compared to a range of about 200-300 parts per million during the past 800,000 years. The current concentration of methane is 1,800 parts per billion, compared to a range of about 400-700 parts per billion during that time.

In every case during that extended period, warm periods coincide with high levels of greenhouse gases. Of some interest, the latest studies are showing that the temperature increases have been even more pronounced during the most recent 450,000 years, compared to several hundred thousand years prior to that.

"It appears there may even be very long term natural cycles that have operated on much longer periods of 400,000 years or more," Brook said. "We still have quite a bit to learn about these past cycles and all the forces that control them."

Most of the time during the past 800,000 years, the Earth has experienced long, cooler periods about 80,000 to 90,000 years long, which eventually lead to ice ages. Those have been regularly interrupted by "interglacial" periods about 10,000 to 20,000 years long that are considerably warmer -- this is the stage the Earth is in right now. Abrupt climate changes on much shorter time scales are also possible, researchers believe, possibly due to shifts in ocean circulation patterns or other forces.

Extremely low CO2 content

"The temperature curve over the past 800,000 years matches the CO2 curve beautifully -- during glacial periods in which the climate is cold, there is less CO2 in the atmosphere," says Professor Thomas Blunier from the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen. He explains that when it is cold there is less plant growth, and so there are fewer plants to absorb the CO2 from the air, while more CO2 is absorbed in the oceans, so the final calculation is a low CO2 content in the atmosphere during glacial periods. This produces a lower greenhouse effect, and leads to an even colder climate.

However, the new results show that during the glacial period that occurred between 650,000 and 750,000 years ago, the CO2 level was extremely low -- lower than any previous measurements have indicated. It happened twice in this period, while the temperature was not lower than during other glacial periods.

Drop in sensitive greenhouse gases

Methane, CH4, is a another important greenhouse gas and a sensitive indicator of climate changes and temperature fluctuations. Methane is formed by microorganisms and escapes from natural gas reservoirs. The biggest discharge from nature comes from bacteria in marsh areas which contribute 70 per cent of the air's methane content, while the remainder comes mostly from wild animals.

Analyses of the ice cores from Antarctica show that the curve for methane matches the temperature curve -- when the climate is cold, there is less methane in the atmosphere. The measurements indicate a strong relationship between the atmospheric methane content in relation to the Earth's path around the Sun as well as the inclination and direction of the Earth's axis. They find evidence for an increasing strength of the monsoon circulation in the tropics over the past 400,000 years.

Scientists are continuing to search for the optimal sites in Antarctica that will allow them to take the ice core records back even further, Brook said.

There is not one study that proves the higer concentrations of C02 and methane CAUSE global warming. Not one. All that article and others like it say is that there is a correlation. It could be that the rise in temps causes a rise in C02.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Arnie:

There is not one study that proves the higer concentrations of C02 and methane CAUSE global warming.

It's the nature of the CO2 molecule. It absorbs IR energy in two ways due to the vibrations of the bonds between the atoms. You can verify this by looking at a laser absorption spectroscopy chart of energy absorption. You will see two peaks (and in fact I posted the chart of energy absorption itself in another thread.)

Your statement is false.

Not one. All that article and others like it say is that there is a correlation. It could be that the rise in temps causes a rise in C02.

Except that it's been proven that the CO2 comes from man.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from monty21:


... I would say I was the "smartest" person in the room...


Well I received a C+ in that class...

You seem to be suffering from self delusion ...and George W. Bush academics.

You poor dumb bastard.

 

[monty21]

Quote from Lucrum:

You seem to be suffering from self delusion ...and George W. Bush academics.

You poor dumb bastard.

Awesome post. Glad you took the time to read, edit, and comment on a pointless post I wrote... which started with "Read this only if bored".

Have fun with Obama Lucrum.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from monty21:

Glad you took the time to read...a pointless post I wrote... which started with "Read this only if bored".

You can omit "Read this only if bored" in future posts.

I don't read any of yours unless I'm bored.

 

[ARealGannTrader]

I haven't read this whole thread, but to draw any kind of reasonable hypothesis, step one is have an adequate data set.

In this case, it is impossible. We currently lack the tech.

It is hubris to think we can kill a planet. We can only kill ourselves, and the planet may do that for us anyway.

If Yosemite erupts, it's all over. It has happened before, it will happen again.

I personally believe that global warming is the creation of people with no worries about survival and as a consequence, lack a sense of purpose.

So, they joined the church of the Green. Businesses recognize that the church of the Green needs services and products to promote their agenda. There is money to be made from the Greenies.

Government sees the opportunity to get all types of Green <del>taxes</del> contributions from concerns citizens.

The schools, not wanting to appear behind will <del> brainwash</del> educate the children to the new religion. Government may c fit to <del> bribe</del> contribute the educational cause.

With all this behind the Green movement, it is a fait accompli.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from ARealGannTrader:

I haven't read this whole thread, but to draw any kind of reasonable hypothesis, step one is have an adequate data set.

In this case, it is impossible. We currently lack the tech.

Huh? Ice cores, boreholes, tree ring analysis, lake and ocean sediments, coral analysis, etc. etc. What kind of technology did you want?

It is hubris to think we can kill a planet. We can only kill ourselves, and the planet may do that for us anyway.

That's kind of the point, to prevent extinction and at the very least, massive problems.

If Yosemite erupts, it's all over. It has happened before, it will happen again.

Or, an asteroid could hit, therefore we shouldn't do anything about arsenic in river water.

 

[ARealGannTrader]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Huh? Ice cores, boreholes, tree ring analysis, lake and ocean sediments, coral analysis, etc. etc. What kind of technology did you want?



That's kind of the point, to prevent extinction and at the very least, massive problems.



Or, an asteroid could hit, therefore we shouldn't do anything about arsenic in river water.

How far back does that data go??? If is less than half the estimated age of the planet, long term cycles cannot be established with any real degree of certainty.

Massive problems will be dealt with as they occur, as humans have always done, with great success I might add.

The government is not trying to impose taxes on us for arsenic in the water.