The Global Warming Hoax is falling apart

Quote from drjekyllus:

"Many materials can appear in an ice core. Layers can be measured in several ways to identify changes in composition. Small meteorites may be embedded in the ice. Volcanic eruptions leave identifiable ash layers. Dust in the core can be linked to increased desert area or wind speed.

Isotopic analysis of the ice in the core can be linked to temperature and global sea level variations. Analysis of the air contained in bubbles in the ice can reveal the palaeocomposition of the atmosphere, in particular CO2 variations. There are great problems relating the dating of the included bubbles to the dating of the ice, since the bubbles only slowly "close off" after the ice has been deposited. Nonetheless, recent work has tended to show that during deglaciations CO2 increases lags temperature increases by 600 +/- 400 years [9]. Beryllium-10 concentrations are linked to cosmic ray intensity which can be a proxy for solar strength." Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

Okay you can shut up now.

Science in the hands of a fool...

1 - This only applies AFTER CONTINENTAL ICE SHEETS ARE MELTING AWAY:

de·gla·ci·a·tion - n. The uncovering of glaciated land because of melting or sublimation of the glacier.

2) Global temperature rises quickly when the ice melts away

3) CO2 rises much more slowly for several reasons, as the followng extracts indicate:

A) "There are many parts to the puzzle of how atmospheric CO2 changed between glacial and interglacial variations. A simple start is in ocean temperature, where we know from basic chemistry principles that a colder ocean would be better at “holding” more CO2 (since gas is more soluble in cooler water), thus lowering atmospheric concentrations. Because so much fresh water was locked up in ice, the glacial oceans were saltier than today by a few percent, which reduces the solubility of CO2 gas in water. "

b) "The coral reef hypothesis asserts that carbonate production on newly flooded shelves contributes importantly to the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide during deglaciation. The pattern of reef growth that emerges suggests that emission of CO2 resulting from carbonate production was important particularly during the late stages of deglaciation"

c) "Upon melting of glacial ice sheets, reestablishment of forests and grasslands caused a Gradual rise in global CO2 levels"

The one who should be shutting up, is one who blindly cuts and pastes things he obviously did not understand
 
Quote from TraderZones:

Science in the hands of a fool...

1 - This only applies AFTER CONTINENTAL ICE SHEETS ARE MELTING AWAY:

de·gla·ci·a·tion - n. The uncovering of glaciated land because of melting or sublimation of the glacier.

2) Global temperature rises quickly when the ice melts away

3) CO2 rises much more slowly for several reasons, as the followng extracts indicate:

A) "There are many parts to the puzzle of how atmospheric CO2 changed between glacial and interglacial variations. A simple start is in ocean temperature, where we know from basic chemistry principles that a colder ocean would be better at “holding” more CO2 (since gas is more soluble in cooler water), thus lowering atmospheric concentrations. Because so much fresh water was locked up in ice, the glacial oceans were saltier than today by a few percent, which reduces the solubility of CO2 gas in water. "

b) "The coral reef hypothesis asserts that carbonate production on newly flooded shelves contributes importantly to the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide during deglaciation. The pattern of reef growth that emerges suggests that emission of CO2 resulting from carbonate production was important particularly during the late stages of deglaciation"

c) "Upon melting of glacial ice sheets, reestablishment of forests and grasslands caused a Gradual rise in global CO2 levels"

The one who should be shutting up, is one who blindly cuts and pastes things he obviously did not understand

LOL
 
Quote from Arnie:

I don't necessarily disagree with that view.....we should minimize our impact on the environment.

Let me ask you this. If we are really serious about reducing C02, then shouldn't that be done with a global scope of the problem? Why should we in the US spend billions (maybe trillions) squeezing that last 5%-10% of efficiency out of our power plants when we have developing countries spewing out 10's and 100's of times the amount of C02? The fact that one country gets a pass while others have to share a bigger cost gives the lie to what the real motivation is, imo.

The US is the top CO2 emitter, but remember when the US was a leader and didn't wait until developing countries did something, but led by example?
 
Quote from FeenixRizin:

co2 lags temperature ... that has been proven


everyone should live long and happy lives also ... saying it and taxing the economy into oblivion won't make it happen


the left is irrationtal ... that has also been proven

If CO2 lags temperature, then the that actually makes the current situation worse as the current CO2 is man-made and, if you are right, then the lagging natural CO2 will compound the impact.
 
Quote from Arnie:

Nice try.
Like I said, there is not one study that proves the rise in temps is due to a rise in C02. If there were, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

There isn't a single cause, but there is also no question that CO2 is a major, or the major, impact on global temperature. That's just the nature of the CO2 molecule and you can verify this by checking the energy absorption charts for CO2. It absorbs a disproportionate share of infra-red energy.
 
Quote from drjekyllus:

Beryllium-10 concentrations are linked to cosmic ray intensity which can be a proxy for solar strength." Wikipedia

Except we're currently in a solar minimum so if you're right then when the solar maximum occurs the effect will be compounded.
 
Quote from drjekyllus:

Vostok-ice-core-petit.png


This shows that like clockwork the global temp seems to quickly rocket up and then fall quickly and remain cool till the next cycle. If this were a stock chart would you be buying or selling temp?


You can clearly see from this graph that CO2 lags temp.

Entertaining chart -- current CO2 levels are over 350 ppm -- even higher than your graph shows -- even though your graph shows thousands of years.

Draw a line from the end of your chart and max it out. Then go higher. That's where CO2 levels are right now.
 
Quote from bigdavediode:

Entertaining chart -- current CO2 levels are over 350 ppm -- even higher than your graph shows -- even though your graph shows thousands of years.

Draw a line from the end of your chart and max it out. Then go higher. That's where CO2 levels are right now.



It appears bigdave is grasping at straws. Show him data compiled at the Vostok Station and suddenly its wrong. All the scientists down there must be wrong and BigDave is right. Arrogance knows no bounds for the left-wing statists.
 
Quote from drjekyllus:

It appears bigdave is grasping at straws. Show him data compiled at the Vostok Station and suddenly its wrong. All the scientists down there must be wrong and BigDave is right. Arrogance knows no bounds for the left-wing statists.

Whoa, take it easy. Nobody's saying the graph is wrong, just not complete.

Current CO2 levels are around 386 ppm -- even higher than at any point in that graph of the last 400,000 years.

If you don't believe me, you can check it yourself at http://co2now.org/ -- the data is from the NOAA.
 
Back
Top