The Global Warming Agenda

[cannon_fodder]

Conan:

Going back many thousands of years they can measure CO2 levels based on bubbles trapped in ice caps.  Going back further than that they can use air pockets trapped in rocks.  Going back even further than that they have to extrapolate levels from the minerals in rocks.  All in all it is fairly accurate.

Nathan:

Ii tried to make it very clear, I am talking about the long term.  In the long term planetary perspective CO2 levels rise and fall very dramatically clearly without human interference.  I understand and appreciate the temperature correlation with CO2 levels, but at the same time appreciate that human's haven't influenced CO2 levels even on the scale you are talking about.  In the last 5,000 years up to the industrial revolution CO2 levels went from ~160ppm to ~275ppm.    In 1880 the most reliable measurements put the number at 290ppm.  By 1940 the level was measured at 440ppm.  After another 70 years of CO2 emissions and further industrialization it is back down to ~380ppm today.

Sometimes temperature rose then CO2.  Sometimes the other way around.  The micro climate map shows varying correlations with CO2 levels and changes that relate in no way to CO2 changes.

From an abject perspective, the data I've been provided with doesn't prove to me that there is a direct correlation between CO2 increases and a rise in temperature, it doesn't prove that the environment doesn't adjust to fluctuation in CO2 levels, nor can I ascertain that human emissions are significant on the whole.

The atmosphere contains about 3,000 gigatonnes of CO2.  Annual emissions are about 27 gigatonnes.  Or nearly 1%.  I do not know what the absorption rate is or if it increases with the availability of CO2.

(this site: http://co2now.org/, is an environmental site advocating a position [you'll note their graph perspective convincingly starts in 1958].  But it has pretty graphs and quick facts.  http://earthtrends.wri.org has raw data available also. )

I'm not arguing that you or other Climate Change people are wrong.  I think pollution, including CO2, is a concern.  I'm just not entirely convinced of the apocalyptic scenario as the data doesn't paint as clear of a picture for me as most scientific endeavors.  It's a huge question (global atmospheric science is hard to replicate), so it is understandable that the  puzzle hasn't been solved.  I just still looking into it.

Thanks for the frank and non-hostile discussion.

[Conan71]

Conan:

Going back many thousands of years they can measure CO2 levels based on bubbles trapped in ice caps.  Going back further than that they can use air pockets trapped in rocks.  Going back even further than that they have to extrapolate levels from the minerals in rocks.  All in all it is fairly accurate.

Again, it's only as accurate as the hypotheses used to determine that gas bubbles trapped in ice is a reflection of atmospheric conditions and that their methods to place an age on said ice is accurate.  Based on a current hypothesis, if data seems to relate to that and bear it out, then you could call it accurate.  What happens when that hypothesis changes or it's proven entirely wrong?   I'm simply pointing out that without live data collection or notes left from our ancestors, you can't say 100% what conditions were half a million years ago.  It's simply not possible with 100% certainty and I don't think anyone can even say a percentage of how close or how far off it might be.  Those who take our place on the planet will have the benefit of live data collection from our lifetime and will be able to say with certainty (other than equipment errors) what the atmosphere was like in 2009.  We can't even do that with 1909, much less 497,901 years before Christ.

Theories and hypotheses change, science is constantly evolving based on new discoveries.

[cannon_fodder]

Conan:

The hypotheses is that one layer of snow falls each year and that analysis done on air pockets in the resulting ice correlates to the same testing done today.  Counting the layers of snow fall is akin to counting tree rings - it is pretty accurate, they have verified dates with volcanic eruptions going back a couple thousand of years to ensure accuracy (volcanic eruptions leave a clear indication in ice records and are verified in written records from several ancient civilizations).  And testing the air pockets, if not contaminated, should be about as accurate as any other atmospheric testing.  If there is a flaw in that system, I struggle to see what it may be.

Science is always changing and methods, hypotheses and theories change - but in and of itself that isn't a reason to discredit any of the above.

[guido911]

Al Gore's D.C. home spotted:

[jamesrage]

No amount of evidence will convince the man made global warming fairy tale religious nuts that they are wrong.

[Gaspar]

No amount of evidence will convince the man made global warming fairy tale religious nuts that they are wrong.

Especially now that there is "no amount of evidence!" 

[rwarn17588]

No amount of evidence will convince the man made global warming fairy tale religious nuts that they are wrong.

Self-parody alert.

[Hoss]

Self-parody alert.

I'm waiting for Sauerkraut to chime in with his 'let's drill baby drill' and 'global warming is a hoax I heart Inhofe' stuff...

[TheArtist]

Al Gore's D.C. home spotted:

  Perhaps he moved to McMurdo in Antarcita.  Just had a friend come back from there, picked him up from the airport saturday, they say its been warmer than usual... cue pics of scientists in T-shirts lol.  Remember too, the US represents about 5% of the surface of the earth.  It could freeze over permanently and the earth on average could still be warming.  We have to look at these things globally. Colder here, hotter there aint gonna tell the whole story.  However,,, a warming earth can mean more moisture which can mean more snow.  I remember reading in the 90s studies that showed areas like NY and DC would likely get lots more snow as the earth warmed. Dont have a clue as to if those old studies were right, but just sayin. 

[Red Arrow]

If the predictions come from a computer they have to be right. 

[Conan71]

My cynicism toward man-made global warming er, climate change would be a whole lot less if the political establishment had not glommed onto it as a way to raise money and create an ever-maddening set of regulations.

[Red Arrow]

I like back-up plans. 

Using all our resources to stop man-made global warming / global climate change ignores the possibility that we cannot stop it and need to use some of those resources to learn to adapt.

[Gaspar]

I like back-up plans. 

Using all our resources to stop man-made global warming / global climate change ignores the possibility that we cannot stop it and need to use some of those resources to learn to adapt.

+10

[USRufnex]

I like back-up plans. 

Using all our resources to stop man-made global warming / global climate change ignores the possibility that we cannot stop it and need to use some of those resources to learn to adapt.

1.  We are not using "all our resources" to stop it.
2.  The actions that are being taken will result in less dependance on foreign oil and less money in the pockets of the anti-American Saudi trust fund babies who could use that money to finance the next round of terrorist attacks.  I think we can call that a win-win... except for the oil-uber-alles lobby....   

[Red Arrow]

1.  We are not using "all our resources" to stop it.
2.  The actions that are being taken will result in less dependance on foreign oil and less money in the pockets of the anti-American Saudi trust fund babies who could use that money to finance the next round of terrorist attacks.  I think we can call that a win-win... except for the oil-uber-alles lobby....   

I knew I could count on you to tote the mass media Algorist line. 

Welcome back from vacation or wherever you were.