Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 11/09/2008 4:35:17 PM PST by I got the rope
The climate orthodoxy of carbon hysteria has never understood the intricacies of causative interaction in Earth's climate. Led by fanatics such as James Hansen and Al Gore, the orthodoxy decided early on to assign responsibility for "climate change" to human generated CO2. Orthodoxers reduced the complex system of climate to a single parameter--CO2--to make their job easier. Unfortunately, the orthodoxy failed to recruit (bribe and cudgel) large numbers of mathematically and scientifically trained men and women who remain curious about the underlying complexity of climate. Curious enough to continue studying climate as a multi-causative system. The distribution of sunlight, rather than the size of North American ice sheets, is the key variable in changes in the North Atlantic deep-water formation during the last four glacial cycles, according to the article. The new study goes back 425,000 years, according to Lorraine Lisiecki, first author and assistant professor in the Department of Earth Science at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Lisiecki and her co-authors studied 24 separate locations in the Atlantic by analysing information from ocean sediment cores. By observing the properties of the shells of tiny marine organisms, called foraminifera, found in these cores, they were able to deduce information about the North Atlantic deep water formation. Scientists can discern historical ocean temperature and circulation patterns through the analysis of the chemical composition of these marine animals. _ScienceCentric The orthodox position has depended upon the spectre of "melting ice sheets" to inject fear into the minds of the masses of common media consumers. As long as they could claim that ice sheets were "melting at unprecedented rates" and "approaching the tipping point", the proles could be stampeded into backing the right political candidates--the ones stupid enough to believe in the hysteria or corrupt enough to sell themselves to the orthodoxy.
Now that the ice sheets are showing some resiliency, global temperatures have stabilised or reversed, and oceans are cooling, the orthodoxy is reduced to outright lying and an accelerating rate of obfuscation and political threats. But even worse for the orthodoxers, the ice sheets themselves appear to have much less to do with climate than the hysterics have been claiming all along. The tried and true propaganda they have used all along lacks any support in truth.
Australians elected a carbon hysteric as leader. The Americans have done the same. Europe's leadership positions at both national and EU levels are infested by carbon hysterics. Does the science really matter, when the politicians all back the orthodoxy? We'll find out shortly.
Know this and know it for a certainty: Carbon dioxide is plant food. Without it, plants wither and die. It is our OBLIGATION to increase carbon dioxide to the degree we are able, to aid our plant life on this planet to grow and extend to its maximum limit.
There is no climate “cure”, because there is no climate “disease”. We rely on carbon-based fuel, and the excess carbon dioxide merely goes into accelerated and extended plant growth. So long as we encourage plant growth at every juncture, by cultivation and land management, the content of carbon dioxide shall never rise above about 0.05% concentration in the atmosphere.
Plants require carbon dioxide to conduct photosynthesis, and greenhouses may enrich their atmospheres with additional CO2 to boost plant growth, since its low present-day atmosphere concentration is just above the “suffocation” level for green plants. A photosynthesis-related drop in carbon dioxide concentration in a greenhouse compartment can kill green plants.
The uncontrolled smokestack emissions of burning coal without any scrubber techniques in place, IS a crime against humanity. But now, carbon dioxide is being put in the same category as sulfur dioxide, mercury vapor, fly ash, cyanides, carbon monoxide, and particulate carbon. The consumption of coal as a fuel driving industry is close to being outlawed in this country by these fanatics.
A must read for all interested in the real reason for climate change, backed with scientific experiment as proof.
http://www.icr.org/article/4156/
*
*
http://icecap.us/index.php
Scroll down about 1/2 way to the article in center column entitled, "If You Don't Like History, Change It" Appears there has been a little tinkering with the data.
For several days recently, it looked as though perhaps Solar Cycle 24 was finally ready to start kicking up into high gear, but now the visible disk is once again completely spotless. Not a good sign.
How come the enviro-mentals never seem to mention that, even though CO2 levels and temperature are linked, the temperature always rises BEFORE the CO2 level? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I always thought the effect was supposed to come AFTER the cause. I forget exactly who, but one of the scientists skeptical of the global warming hysteria said that saying CO2 causes global warming is like saying lung cancer causes smoking.
Soviet historians could fearlessly foretell the ineluctable future, but could never predict the ever changing past.
See my #10.
Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory is extremely robust with respect to data: all observation confirm it at the 100% confidence level.
My wife runs a couple of girl scout troops. This year’s Fall Products sale is about ‘green’.
I’ve been looking to come up with a few simple, understandable-by-preteens items to pass along re: Global Warming.
Here’s line of thinking:
Question: What are the molecules that compose air? Name them in order of most-to-least.
Answer: Nitrogen, Oxygen, Water, Argon, Carbon Dioxide, and Other.
Question: If you assume that all the air in this room adds up to $100., what is the value of each of these from the most numerous molecules to the least numerous?
Answer:
Nitrogen: $77.00
Oxygen: $20.00
Water: $ 2.00
Argon: $ 0.95
CO2: $ 0.04
Other: $ 0.01
Question: So, even now that Humans have pumped MASSIVE amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, it only makes up 4 cents of the entire $100. of the atmosphere. How much of the 4 cents have been added by Humans?
Answer: 1 penney. So, yea, that’s going to kill us, right?
cheee
(actually my two 20-something children got this wrong.)
Could you give us a source for it?
Heresy, heresy, my goodly man!
Know ye not that the orthodox science is right every time! Have ye not the faith in your betters? Have ye not reigned in your doubts and the trivial bits of evidence that refute the gainsayers of Washington and the IPCC?
Shame. I say again Shame! on you for doubting the Gore...
(Have you noticed that every time “orthodox science” starts stridently defending itself and the conventional wisdom, it turns out that the “new idea” was right, and conventional wisdom dead wrong?)
I too am 100% sure that there is an Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory.
Now, that theory is dead wrong, but there is an AGW theory.
9 Nov 08...no sunspots.
You have to wonder at what time this nonsense is going to end.
If we are really in for a 30 to 50 year cooling period like many believe then the Northeast (Washington D.C.) is going to get pounded with horrible winters.
What is it going to take?????
If you Google ‘composition of air’, you’ll find lots of links where they show the various constituents of ‘dry air’. Here’s one - http://mistupid.com/chemistry/aircomp.htm
It’s a bit more fuzzy to determine the average value of water vapor in the atmosphere. There is a LOT of difference from hot to cold and rainforest to desert. I read somewhere that the average is 2% ... which seems like a reasonable value. I’ve read elsewhere that it ranges from 1-4%.
Anyway, assume 2% is H2O, adjust to 100% and round off your numbers ... done.
I believe the best part of the discussion is to put the relative percentages in terms of dollars and cents. A junior high schooler might get lost in percentages or fractions or ppm. But I guarantee you they understand the difference between the $20. worth of O2 (animals breathe this) and 4 cents worth of CO2 (plants breathe this).
It’s a simple way to change the histerical “OMG we’ve added 100ppm of CO2” into “oh, yea, all of our emissions put together adds up to a single penny of CO2, it really is neglible”. And, BTW, if we’d subtracted a penny’s worth of CO2 instead of adding it - the plants would be dying now...
 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.