Satellite sensor errors cause data outage
Doomed satellite was to measure 'greenhouse gases'
'Global warming' data called 'ancient astrology'
Global warming on Free Republic
Posted on 02/27/2009 6:20:33 PM PST by neverdem
You are missing my point.
The global warming movement is not science, it is political driven hysteria.
There is a difference between science and politics. The global warming movement has jumped the gun on science for politics and money.
I prefer to live in modern society that communications, medicine, transportation, and electricity have given us thanks to science. I do not want to give it up because of some crackpot scientists who worship the earth and some money driven corporations. But just because some science is bad does not mean all science is bad.
Yes, I have a clue. If you would take the time to think about it, you would see that we are on the same side of the argument. I am merely trying to point out that real science has had benefit to mankind, and that the politics of global warming is not science.
Youngs Modulus is a material property discovered by scientific research. It is a fact and is very useful to man. There is no politics involved in discussing or using this phenomenon.
Debate is usually best done with personal attacks.
You don't know me, you have no idea about my education, experience, or background.
I have not said anything derogatory about you.
A depression is precisely what they want. Please stop thinking they want to fix the economy, only the assh*les in the MSM take that seriously. Stalin deliberately destroyed the Soviet economy, starved the Kulaks etc.. His goal? Absolute power at the expense of the populus. Obama is playing by the handbook, the deliberate destruction of the economy will be blamed on the failure of capitalism, each step down will require a new emergency program. Violence in the streets if it erupts will be called the worst since the civil war, an excuse for martial law. These guys have no intention of ever giving up power peacefully. Unfortunately too many on our side are playing electoral rules politics, they are playing by stalinist bolshevik rules. Unless we adapt, and adapt fast we lose. The left calls us reactionaries, there is a good reason for that, we have been reacting in exactly the way they want us to. We still can’t seem to want to believe they want to establish a dictatorship, not in America, it can’t happen here syndrome. I have news for all of you, it can and it will happen here. I have seen all of this before in Argentina, this is all deja vu to me. Wake up now or lose, we need to defeat them NOW, NOT in 2010. There may not be any valid elections by then.
The Universities like the research grants...helps buy fancy super computers....
Dick Morris was on Fox yesterday...saying that a Depression is what Obama needs....to frighten all into passing his agenda...uh...rescue of the economy...
I do it often. That's how I usually find the latest stories on global cooling.
So what accounts for the decrease in atmospheric CO2, i.e. what caused it besides a prior decrease in temperature? What flora, which consume CO2, and fauna, which produce it, in the biosphere would prosper with the decreasing temperature that would consume atmospheric CO2? What microbes prosper at lower temperatures that consume CO2 are there? What other sinks do you have besides water and carbonate formation, which is exothermic?
However, pCO2 records derived from stomata densities of terrestrial plant leaf remains suggest that pCO2 during the Eocene was not substantially higher than modern concentrations. In either case, it would appear that changes in post-middle Eocene climates were driven by factors other than pCO2, such as changes in continental elevations, oceanic circulation, and possibly sea level.
How about the earth got cooler?
My results indicate that following the expansion of ice on East Antarctica (ca. 14.5-12 Ma), pCO2 steadily increased until about 9 Ma and stabilized at pre-industrial values (ca. 290 ppmv; generally below the threshold level required by the pCO2-C4 hypothesis).pCO2 remained relatively constant throughout the late Miocene and therefore provide no evidence that changes in pCO2 forced ecological change during this time.
I believe you have the cart before the horse. Colder temperatures takes the CO2 out of the atmosphere. Warmer temperatures degas the oceans. The CO2 levels in the late Eocene were about twice to over five times current levels. Other eras have had more than ten times current levels, IIRC. Thanks for the graph & link.
If you never read The Battle of Athens, take a gander. Here's more.
If they want a civil war, I think they'll get it. Thomas Jefferson would probably think we are way overdue.
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion."
Check comment# 47. My italicized excerpts come from the link in comment# 30. Thank you, cogitator.
with = without
my bad.....
Satellite sensor errors cause data outage
Doomed satellite was to measure 'greenhouse gases'
'Global warming' data called 'ancient astrology'
Global warming on Free Republic
Exactly. They need a crises to control us. Whether it is real or contrived makes no difference at all.
Thanks neverdem and BIGLOOK
Thanks for the ping!
Degas is only an artist's surname so far. I should have written warmer temperatures will cause the degasification of the oceans dissolved carbon dioxide.
Colder temperatures increase the solubility of carbon dioxide in the oceans. The carbon in the atmosphere has to go somewhere. It can go into the oceans with cooler temperatures. Most forms of living things in the biosphere, except those adapted to living at or near polar regions, fair less well in cooler temperatures, i.e. their metabolisms slow down.
The question is why did the temperature drop? The atmospheric CO2 decrease was a natural result. It's not that people stopped burning wood and eating plants. It is from one or more natural phenomena, i.e. Milankovitch Cycles, decreased sunspot activity like that being observed now, increased volcanic activity spewing sulphates in the air or a catastrophic impact with an object from space putting a massive amount of dust in the atmosphere.
Colder temperatures increase the solubility of carbon dioxide in the oceans. The carbon in the atmosphere has to go somewhere. It can go into the oceans with cooler temperatures.
It's not about solubility. Read reference 10 in point #5 of my profile. (It's an abstract, it's short). It's about ocean circulation, ocean mixing, enhanced weathering... basically a whole lot of things. The Eocene-Oligocene transition was an even bigger shift. There had to be increased deposition of sedimentary carbonates, perhaps more calcification; as the article alludes to, even changes in the terrestrial biosphere. The CO2 went a lot of places.
The question is why did the temperature drop?
Because of a drastic change in the radiative absorption properties of the atmosphere -- that's why the ran the climate models!!
Milankovitch Cycles,
Not nearly enough. The Milankovitch cycles can initiate changes, but they don't cause enough of an incoming energy change to sustain them.
decreased sunspot activity like that being observed now,
Little Ice Age, maybe. For an Eocene to Oligocene drop, the Sun would actually have to shrink. There's no evidence that it did.
increased volcanic activity spewing sulphates in the air
Easy signature -- not found. The signature is similar to the asteroid signature -- also not found in the Eocene. The Eocene cooling happened over the whole period. It wasn't a short event like the K/T boundary or a couple of other abrupt cooling or warming events. Big excursions have geochemical signatures.
or a catastrophic impact with an object from space putting a massive amount of dust in the atmosphere.
Because you haven't found some evidence doesn't mean such evidence does not exist. How do you explain the pattern of increased atmospheric CO2 hundreds of years after ice ages receded during interglacials? Nobody was burning anything. What's your explanation for ice ages?
Cheers!
I just don’t see how anyone can say that science is honest and objective when we have the Global Warming lie. Remember, this is not just a few scientists who are spewing this lie—it is the best and brightest, the most prestigious scientific publications, etc. If this sort of corruption can happen through the entire science community, then why would anyone want to trust any science theory? How do we know any science theory is not corrupted? We don’t. And the proof is in the pudding, called Global Warming. You are missing the point here. This is science from the upmost highest levels spewing the Global Warming lie. That science just went through all of your science standards and made a mockery of them and discredits all of it.
I take issue with the "best and brightest" comment.
If they are putting politics in front of true science (facts pure and simple), they are neither scientists nor very bright.
When said "most prestigious scientific publications" are run by said "best and brightest" who are not, then the publications cease to be the most prestigious". They become political junkmail.
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.