Posted on 05/25/2006 9:02:16 AM PDT by cogitator
I have often mused that if CO2 requires the use of a molecule of oxygen added to a single carbon atom could it be argued that the mass of the atmosphere is increasing overall by the carbon overload and has anyone tried to measure this or the small but significant reduction in free oxygen?
Not at all; it assumes that every addition contributed by man remains and we both know that it is impossible to quantify the emissions over 200 years.
When we first measured the air we had about 280ppm; 200 years later we see 380; we know the diameter of the earth within a few miles and the height of the atmosphere as well as the weight in pounds, shekels and promises but the importance in the past with atmospheric weight is that it could be useful as a harbinger of weather, to now pretend that it is a bellwether for climate as well is a leap of faith.
Yes we know CO2 OFTEN goes up and down with temperature but not always.
Could you look at post number 196 and explain to me how the earth had over 12X more CO2 then we have today and was colder then it is today?
Nasa came to the general conclusion in their study that the sun may have played a dominant role in pre-industrial climate change (from 1600 to 1800, for example) but it has not played a significant part in long-term climate change during the past few decades.
In other words, like Nasa said, Solar output had a very significant relationship in those little glacial ages that you showed in your graph from thousands and thousands years ago. Low solar output=extreme cold.
Then we have a similar conclusion from the National Academy of Sciences of the US:
The evidence of periods of several centuries of cooler climates worldwide called "little ice ages," similar to the period anno Domini (A.D.) 1280-1860 and reoccurring approximately every 1,300 years, corresponds well with fluctuations in modeled solar output.
Now look at this graph and note how solar output is decreasingly having an effect in global warming, suggesting that man-caused greenhouse gases such as co2 emissions are the problem:
Clearly.
Therefore, it's impossible for modern equipment to be the cause.
Seems simple enough.
Cars cause global warming like silicon breast implants cause health problems. The media whips people into a frenzy by publishing data without any context, then demands something be done.
OH and i didn't even mention the changes in the earth's axial tilt (Milankovitch cycles) that occasionally occur in our planet, and that Scientists say have been a major factor in the glacial periods that may have appeared in the graph contained in post 196.
For more information on this: http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
Now look at this graph and note how solar output is decreasingly having an effect in global warming, suggesting that man-caused greenhouse gases such as co2 emissions are the problem:
How does this suggest that man created this? The first thing I notice in your graph was during WWII when man was at our highest level of pollution the temperature went down. All this graph shows me is there are other forces acting on the earth to create the change in temperature. We know it isnt CO2 because we can mathematically calculate the amount of temperature gain.
Should we figure out what it is? YES Should we point fingers before we figure that out? You tell me.
I would first suggest we look at other planets in the solar system to see what they might be doing. We do know that Mars and Pluto are warming up in the past few years.
It is interesting to note on cycles we found tropical plants in Antarctica.
"Do you have a source for this"
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Scroll down the page a bit.
Even given that the globe is warming, the evidence that man is the cause is pretty shaky. But then, liberals tend to be consumed with guilt, anyway...all it needs is a focus.
Look at the weather forecast on Yahoo several times a day. Educated meteorologists can't even tell me what the G-d D@mn temperature is going to be each day within one degree, and when or whether it's going to rain, and they have ALL of the data necessary at hand to determine that.
If there is an evidence that is weak is the evidence on the theory of solar output causing the increasing temperatures in recent decades. And this has been proven by directly measuring solar radiation, which we couldn't do in the past. The U.S Global Climate Change Research Program says it. A group commissioned by Bush to investigate global warming says it. Most scientists say it.
The blip extends from roughly 1945 to 1986 and coincides, roughly, with the duration of atmospheric nuclear testing.
How long have we been doing this, exactly?
Running the numbers yields a 0.6 C increase for the current 350ppm CO2 (increased from 280). The highest projected increase in CO2 (which IMO is unlikely) yeilds another 1 degree C. The rest of the warming from the alarmists comes from models showing water vapor. Most of the warming from those models requires water vapor to be much more evenly distributed than is currently the case or possible in the future. To spin it more, the alarmists claim the water vapor will wind up in the stratosphere where it will cause the most warming. However, they don't like to talk about weather since that's how the water vapor will be distributed and how most of the stratospheric water vapor will get there.
Why don't they talk about weather? Because they can't model it in enough horizontal and vertical detail to get a meaningful idea about its effect.
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.