There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming - Communitites @ The Anomalies Network

You are not logged in. [Log In] The Anomalies Network Forum » Forums » Science » Environmental Issues » There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming

Page 3 of 24

Last »

Topic Options

Rate This Topic

#159251 - 12/15/04 06:13 AM Re: There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming
Rick Donaldson Rick Donaldson Time Traveler Senior Investigator Registered: 05/04/01 Posts: 6973 Loc: Colorado Springs	Meteorologist Likens Fear of Global Warming to 'Religious Belief' By Marc Morano CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer December 02, 2004 Washington (CNSNews.com) - An MIT meteorologist Wednesday dismissed alarmist fears about human induced global warming as nothing more than 'religious beliefs.' "Do you believe in global warming? That is a religious question. So is the second part: Are you a skeptic or a believer?" said Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen, in a speech to about 100 people at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. "Essentially if whatever you are told is alleged to be supported by 'all scientists,' you don't have to understand [the issue] anymore. You simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief," Lindzen said. His speech was titled, "Climate Alarmism: The Misuse of 'Science'" and was sponsored by the free market George C. Marshall Institute. Lindzen is a professor at MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences. Once a person becomes a believer of global warming, "you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you are supported by all scientists -- except for a handful of corrupted heretics," Lindzen added. According to Lindzen, climate "alarmists" have been trying to push the idea that there is scientific consensus on dire climate change. "With respect to science, the assumption behind the [alarmist] consensus is science is the source of authority and that authority increases with the number of scientists [who agree.] But science is not primarily a source of authority. It is a particularly effective approach of inquiry and analysis. Skepticism is essential to science -- consensus is foreign," Lindzen said. Alarmist predictions of more hurricanes, the catastrophic rise in sea levels, the melting of the global poles and even the plunge into another ice age are not scientifically supported, Lindzen said. "It leads to a situation where advocates want us to be afraid, when there is no basis for alarm. In response to the fear, they want us to do what they want," Lindzen said. Recent reports of a melting polar ice cap were dismissed by Lindzen as an example of the media taking advantage of the public's "scientific illiteracy." "The thing you have to remember about the Arctic is that it is an extremely variable part of the world," Lindzen said. "Although there is melting going [on] now, there has been a lot of melting that went on in the [19]30s and then there was freezing. So by isolating a section ... they are essentially taking people's ignorance of the past," he added. 'Repetition makes people believe' The climate change debate has become corrupted by politics, the media and money, according to Lindzen. "It's a sad story, where you have scientists making meaningless or ambiguous statements [about climate change]. They are then taken by advocates to the media who translate the statements into alarmist declarations. You then have politicians who respond to all of this by giving scientists more money," Lindzen said. "Agreement on anything is taken to infer agreement on everything. So if you make a statement that you agree that CO2 (carbon dioxide) is a greenhouse gas, you agree that the world is coming to an end," he added. "There can be little doubt that the language used to convey alarm has been sloppy at best," Lindzen said, citing Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbles and his famous observation that even a lie will be believed if enough people repeat it. "There is little question that repetition makes people believe things [for] which there may be no basis," Lindzen said. He believes the key to improving the science of climate change lies in altering the way scientists are funded. 'Alarm is the aim' "The research and support for research depends on the alarm," Lindzen told CNSNews.com following his speech. "The research itself often is very good, but by the time it gets through the filter of environmental advocates and the press innocent things begin to sound just as though they are the end of the world. "The argument is no longer what models are correct -- they are not -- but rather whether their results are at all possible. One can rarely prove something to be impossible," he explained. Lindzen said scientists must be allowed to conclude that 'we don't have a problem." And if the answer turns out to be 'we don't have a problem,' we have to figure out a better reward than cutting off people's funding. It's as simple as that," he said. The only consensus that Lindzen said exists on the issue of climate change is the impact of the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty to limit greenhouse gases, which the U.S. does not support. Kyoto itself will have no discernible effect on global warming regardless of what one believes about climate change," Lindzen said. "Claims to the contrary generally assume Kyoto is only the beginning of an ever more restrictive regime. However this is hardly ever mentioned," he added. The Kyoto Protocol, which Russia recently ratified, aims to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2010. But Lindzen claims global warming proponents ultimately want to see a 60 to 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gasses from the 1990 levels. Such reductions would be economically disastrous, he said. "If you are hearing Kyoto will cost billions and trillions," then a further reduction will ultimately result in "a shutdown" of the economy, Lindzen said. _________________________ Ad astra per aspera
Top

#159252 - 12/15/04 06:18 AM Re: There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming
Rick Donaldson Rick Donaldson Time Traveler Senior Investigator Registered: 05/04/01 Posts: 6973 Loc: Colorado Springs	And finally, Starman, just to show you that I'm not just pulling this stuff out of my ass, look at the date on THIS article, and tell me you somehow MISSED this one too. September 15, 1997 The Heated Rhetoric of Global Warming by Jerry Taylor Jerry Taylor is director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute and senior editor of Regulation magazine. As the nations of the world busily prepare an international treaty to address greenhouse gas emissions, the public debate over global climate change is heating up. Yet the political debate over what to do about global warming is far different from the scientific debate surrounding the issue, and the gulf between the two is widening, not closing. Politics -- not science -- is increasingly driving this debate, and truth is increasingly the casualty. If you rely on the national news media for information about the public debate, here’s what you "know": the overwhelming consensus is that the science is in, but the naked clout of an unconscionable energy industry is holding up a solution. Consider remarks made last month by Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt: "Oil and coal companies in the United States have joined in a conspiracy to hire pseudoscientists to deny the facts, and then begin raising political arguments that are essentially fraudulent. . . . Energy companies need to be called to account because what they're doing is un-American in the most basic sense. They are compromising our future by misrepresenting the facts by suborning scientists onto their payrolls and attempting to mislead the American people." Yet Babbitt is sugarcoating it as far as Ross Gelbspan, a Boston-based journalist, is concerned. Gelbspan, author of The Heat Is On, a book currently receiving fawning attention from the New York Times, the Washington Post and most of the other major newspapers, accuses industry of masterminding a conspiracy to cover up the truth and indulging in "the big lie" as "a prelude to a kind of totalitarianism" envisioned in George Orwell's 1984. Most members of the political and journalistic community accept Babbitt's and Gelbspan's characterization of the debate, but they're clearly uneasy that the American public evinces such little concern about global warming and that the administration has yet to commit to the kind of policies necessary to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They are right to worry. The scientific debate -- that is, the debate in the scientific journals and refereed literature -- is as different from the public debate as night is from day. While Babbitt, Gelbspan and their sympathizers were huffing and puffing about greenhouse skepticism, the scientific community was, to a large degree, embracing it. On May 16, America's most prestigious scientific journal, Science, published an article titled "Greenhouse Forecasting Still Cloudy." Said the article, "Many climate experts caution that it is not at all clear yet that human activities have begun to warm the planet -- or how bad greenhouse warming will be when it arrives." Dr. Benjamin Santer, author of a key chapter in the latest report of the UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), conceded that "it's unfortunate that many people read the media hype before they read the [IPCC] chapter" on the detection of greenhouse warming. "I think the caveats are there. We say quite clearly that few scientists would say the attribution issue [the argument that global warming is caused by human industrial activity] was a done deal." On June 2, Bert Bolin, chairman of the IPCC, conceded in a debate with environmental scientist Fred Singer of the Science & Environmental Policy Project that "the climate issue is not 'settled'; it is both uncertain and incomplete." Bolin further noted that the small amount of warming during the past century occurred mainly before 1940 and is most likely a natural recovery from previous cooling, not a manifestation of human-induced warming. On July 19, the distinguished British journal New Scientist published a cover story titled "Greenhouse Wars: Why the Rebels Have a Cause." After a thorough review of the scientific evidence marshaled by both sides, the magazine concluded that the skeptics are "among the world's top scientists." The unmistakable if unspoken bottom line of the article is that these skeptics have the better of the scientific argument at present. Have Babbitt and Gelbspan somehow failed to notice this genuine debate in the world of science? Of course not. As the old lawyers adage goes: When you have the facts on your side, hammer the facts; when you have the law on your side, hammer the law; when you have neither, hammer the table. Alarmists in the media and the Clinton administration clearly have decided that the best way to win the global warming debate is by shouting down the opposition and demonizing them in the eyes of the public. But that is not dispassionate scientific debate; it is more like a "struggle meeting" during the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Four months before an international conference in Kyoto where a global warming treaty is to be signed, Bruce Babbitt has given us a hint of the debate to come. _________________________ Ad astra per aspera
Top

#159253 - 12/15/04 06:22 AM Re: There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming
Rick Donaldson Rick Donaldson Time Traveler Senior Investigator Registered: 05/04/01 Posts: 6973 Loc: Colorado Springs	Earth 'shook off' ancient warming (So now you're saying the planet solved global warming before?) BBC News ^ \| Monday, 2 February, 2004 UK scientists claim they now know how Earth recovered on its own from a sudden episode of severe global warming at the time of the dinosaurs. Understanding what happened could help experts plan for the future impact of man-made global warming, experts say. Rock erosion may have leached chemicals into the sea, where they combined with carbon dioxide, causing levels of the greenhouse gas to fall worldwide. UK scientists report the details of their research in the journal Geology. About 180 million years ago, temperatures on Earth rapidly shot up by about 5 Celsius. The cause is thought to have been a sudden release of huge amounts of methane from the sea bed. Methane is itself a greenhouse gas but it is short-lived. However, it is easily oxidised to carbon dioxide (CO2) which lingers in the atmosphere for long periods of time. Mass extinction Plants and animals were affected by the sudden rise in atmospheric CO2. Scientists have found evidence of a marine mass extinction during this period that killed off 84% of bivalve shellfish. Over a period of about 150,000 years, the Earth returned to normal and life continued flourishing. How this happened was a mystery, but now scientists from the Open University in Milton Keynes claim to have a possible answer. "Our new evidence has shown that this warming caused the weathering of rocks on the Earth's surface to rapidly increase by at least 400%," said Dr Anthony Cohen, who led the research. "This intense rock-weathering effectively put a brake on global warming through chemical reactions that consumed the atmosphere's extra carbon dioxide." They discovered that the rock had been subjected to high rates of weathering facilitated by warm conditions during the Jurassic hot spell. 'Methane burp' Weathering occurs through the action of rain. Although the researchers did not uncover direct evidence for increased precipitation, they believe there were no limitations on water during the period. The warm conditions caused by the "methane burp" would have sped up the rate at which weathering occurred. This led to minerals such as calcium and magnesium eroding from rocks and pouring into the sea. Calcium combined with CO2, for instance, would have caused the precipitation of calcium carbonate. This process of CO2 consumption would have lowered levels of the greenhouse gas on a global scale. As CO2 levels fell, so did global temperatures. "Global warming is affecting the climate today, but it's very difficult to predict what's going to happen," Dr Cohen told BBC News Online. "The reason for doing these studies is that you get the whole history. If you learn what happened then, that can inform how you deal with [the same problem] in future." Dr Cohen added that there are still vast reserves of carbon - possibly as much as 14,000 gigatons - locked up as methane ice in ocean sediments. If global temperatures reach a critical point, it is possible they might suddenly be released into the atmosphere causing a similar event to the one that occurred during the Jurassic. "What we have learned from these rocks is how the Earth can, over a long time, combat global warming. What we need to discover now is why and at what point it goes into combat mode, and precisely how long the conflict takes to resolve," he explained. Dr Cohen and his colleagues based their results on studies of mudrock rich in organic material and collected near Whitby in North Yorkshire. _________________________ Ad astra per aspera
Top

#159254 - 12/15/04 07:08 AM Re: There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming
Violet19 Violet19 Member Registered: 07/07/01 Posts: 1197 Loc: Chicago Area	Long Island \| New York City \| Nation \| World \| Health/Science \| State \| Obituaries \| Columnists Student Briefing \| Schools \| Crime & Courts \| Politics \| LI Life \| Corrections Wednesday, December 15, 2004 Cuts in Carbon Dioxide Emissions Urged Email this story Printer friendly format Top Stories 20 Soldiers, 6 Rebels Die in Nepal Fighting Taxi Driver Shoots Man in Bin Laden Mask AP Top International News At 9:53 a.m. EST Two Armed Men Hijack Bus Outside Athens AP: Yushchenko Has Historic Dioxin Level Enter a Category View List By CHARLES J. HANLEY AP Special Correspondent December 14, 2004, 8:56 PM EST BUENOS AIRES, Argentina -- The world's chief climate scientist on Tuesday disputed the U.S. government contention that cutbacks in carbon dioxide emissions are not yet warranted to check global warming. Experts readied a report, meanwhile, saying 2004 will be one of the warmest years on record. "The science says you've got to reduce emissions," Rajendra K. Pachauri told The Associated Press in an interview midway through a two-week international climate conference. The Kyoto Protocol, the international accord requiring cuts in carbon dioxide, "is driven by the need to reduce emissions, and on that there is no question," said Pachauri, chairman of a U.N.-sponsored network of climatologists. Scientists largely blame the accumulation of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere for the rising temperatures of the past century. The 10 warmest years globally, since records were first kept in the 19th century, have all occurred since 1990, the top three since 1998. Specialists here this week will issue a report saying 2004 ranks as the fourth- or fifth-warmest year recorded. Conference delegates from dozens of nations are fine-tuning the workings of the Kyoto pact, which takes effect Feb. 16. It sets targets for 30 industrial nations -- excluding the nonparticipating United States and Australia -- to reduce emissions of six greenhouse gases, most importantly carbon dioxide, a byproduct of coal, oil and gasoline use. The United States is a member of the umbrella U.N. treaty on climate change, and it signed that treaty's Kyoto Protocol in 1997. But President Bush renounced the Kyoto agreement in 2001, saying emission reductions would hurt the U.S. economy. Before leaving for the annual climate-treaty talks, U.S. negotiator Harlan Watson told reporters in Washington that the United States -- the world's biggest emitter of carbon dioxide -- would eventually stop the growth in its emissions "as the science justifies." After arriving here, he said the Kyoto Protocol's approach was "not based on science." Asked about Watson's statements, Pachauri was emphatic. "The science says you've got to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The science says you've got to stabilize concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere," he said. "What may be subject to uncertainty and subject to debate is who is to reduce how much." As chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Indian scientist oversees the work of hundreds of specialists who regularly assess the latest research on climate change and its likely effects. In its last major report, in 2001, the panel projected that global temperatures in the 21st century would increase by 3 to 10 degrees, depending on many factors, including how quickly and deeply gas emissions were cut back. Warming is predicted to cause greater extremes in temperature, and possibly dry out farmlands, stir up fiercer storms and raise ocean levels, among other impacts, the panel said. At the conference Tuesday, European scientists said even an additional 2 degrees might threaten South American water supplies and reduce Asian food yields. One of the world's leading climate institutes, the British government's Hadley Center, issued a report at the conference Tuesday on work done to narrow the uncertainties, by running many dozens more model scenarios through its supercomputers. It said temperatures would most likely rise by an additional 5 degrees by later this century if the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere doubles from its pre-industrial levels -- a probable scenario if emissions are not controlled. Pachauri said the evidence of change is everywhere -- in the doubling of extreme weather events recorded by the World Meteorological Organization, in the melting of glaciers worldwide, and in the one-degree global temperature rise of the past century. "The evidence is so strong, the observations so strong, it's very difficult to close your eyes to it," he said. "I was born in the mountains in India. I've seen the kinds of changes that have taken place with snow cover, with the seasons, with the extent of warming, precipitation patterns, the impact on forests." Delegations at the conference are searching for ways to bring the United States into the Kyoto process and acceptance of mandatory reductions in gases. Besides the economic argument, Bush complained that some poor but rapidly industrializing nations, such as China and India, were not obligated by Kyoto's short-term targets. Pachauri said he was heartened by the actions of individual U.S. states, particularly in the U.S. Northeast, to impose carbon-dioxide reductions on power plants, for example. "I think the next round of action will only come from an acceptance of the science," he said. http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/...world-headlines
Top

#159255 - 12/15/04 07:57 AM Re: There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming
Lazarus Starr Lazarus Starr Moderator Registered: 02/23/03 Posts: 1656 Loc: MO. USA	http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/prog1.htm quote: Environmentalist thinking is now widely accepted in the West. However, many scientists argue that what the Greens say about global warming and pollution is wrong. Professor Wilfred Beckerman, a former member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, was himself an enthusiastic environmentalist until he started examining the facts. He told Against Nature: 'Within a few months of looking at the statistical data, I realised that most of my concerns about the environment were based on false information and scare stories.' According to Piers Corbyn, Director of Weather Action, many scientists do not accept the idea that pollution is causing global warming. Environmentalists claim that world temperatures have risen one degree Fahrenheit in the past century, but Corbyn points out that the period they take as their starting point - around 1880 - was colder than average. What's more, the timing of temperature changes does not appear to support the theory of global warming. Most of the rise came before 1940 - before human-caused emissions of 'greenhouse' gases became significant. According to the Greens, during the post-war boom global warming should have pushed temperatures up. But the opposite happened. 'As a matter of the fact, the decrease in temperature, which was very noticeable in the 60s and 70s, led many people to fear that we would be going into another ice age,' remembers Fred Singer, former Chief Scientist with the US Weather Program. Even in recent times, the temperature has not behaved as it should according to global warming theory. Over the last eight years, temperature in the southern hemisphere has actually been falling. Moreover, says Piers Corbyn, 'When proper satellite measurements are done of world temperatures, they do not show any increase whatsoever over the last 20 years.' http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html quote: Myth #1: Scientists Agree the Earth Is Warming. While ground-level temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measure- ments, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years. [See Figure I.] Even if the earth's temperature has increased slightly, the increase is well within the natural range of known temperature variation over the last 15,000 years. Indeed, the earth experienced greater warming between the 10th and 15th centuries - a time when vineyards thrived in England and Vikings colonized Greenland and built settlements in Canada. http://www.umich.edu/~mrev/archives/1997/10-8-97/environment.htm quote: Despite the rantings of the apocalyptic ecoprophets, the actual temperature records, taken in North America and Western Europe, show no significant or consistent upward trends. There is, instead, a series of highs and lows. According to the Greenhouse theory, the increase in carbon dioxide emissions since the beginning of the Industrial Age should have increased average temperatures by two to four degrees Celsius over the last 100 years. In reality, temperatures have only increased a paltry 0.5 degrees Celsius. -Laz
Top

#159256 - 12/15/04 08:06 AM Re: There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming
Rick Donaldson Rick Donaldson Time Traveler Senior Investigator Registered: 05/04/01 Posts: 6973 Loc: Colorado Springs	quote: The Kyoto Protocol, the international accord requiring cuts in carbon dioxide, "is driven by the need to reduce emissions, and on that there is no question," said Pachauri, chairman of a U.N.-sponsored network of climatologists. Two problems here. 1) UN-sponsored 2) "is driven by the need to reduce emmissions". No evidence for this at all, state the dozen or so people I've already quoted, and even some of the same so-called "scientists" who are making these claims in the first place, who can not even back up their statements with documentation. quote: Scientists largely blame the accumulation of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere for the rising temperatures of the past century. "Scientists largely blame".... again, where is the evidence for this. Show me one real scientific paper on this, giving evidence to this statement. Show me the data on temperatures for the last century, where is that? What scientist has that handy? quote: "The science says you've got to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The science says you've got to stabilize concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere," he said. "What may be subject to uncertainty and subject to debate is who is to reduce how much." No, what is "subject to debate" is NOT who has to reduce how much, but whether this is actually a real problem. THAT is the debate. That's what this thread is about. One scientist saying (if he even IS a scientist, by the way) that global warming is a problem when compared to literally hundreds of meterologists and other environmental scientists who are saying IT ISN'T a problem, is one voice, against all those others in the same field as he. quote: The world's chief climate scientist on Tuesday disputed the U.S. government contention that cutbacks in carbon dioxide emissions are not yet warranted to check global warming. We're not talking about "US Government" here, we're talking about SCIENTISTS in the US. Two separate things. Your scientist is pointing fingers at the government, I'm pointing fingers at the alleged scientists making these wild claims. _________________________ Ad astra per aspera
Top

#159257 - 12/15/04 08:47 AM Re: There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming
intime intime Junior Member Registered: 03/02/04 Posts: 22 Loc: Mediamerica	Somewhat tangential question but I think related - 200 years ago though people may have used trace ammounts of the fossil feul resources, it would have been nowhere near what we are experiencing today. Prior to that as far as we go back in history there is no record of such usage, particularly the burning of fossil feuls (creating emissions). Is there anything which can reveal to us what the function of fossil fuels in the earth prior to our extraction of them, and what effect such global usage now has? Perhaps this question has been answered in one of Rick's article postings but i haven't been able to get through them all. Perhaps Rick could quote this or direct me to the answer. _________________________ ...all things in time.
Top

#159258 - 12/15/04 08:56 AM Re: There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming
Rick Donaldson Rick Donaldson Time Traveler Senior Investigator Registered: 05/04/01 Posts: 6973 Loc: Colorado Springs	'Ignore Global Warming,' Says Former Greenpeace Member By Marc Morano CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer December 14, 2004 Buenos Aires, Argentina (CNSNews.com) - A former member of Greenpeace who became disillusioned with what he saw as bad eco-science urged a United Nations climate change conference to "save the world" by ignoring global warming. "Climate change is a huge thing, but there is very little that we can do about it," Bjorn Lomborg told CNSNews.com following a speech in Buenos Aires on Monday. Lomborg, the author of the new book Global Crisis, Global Solutions, also wrote The Skeptical Environmentalist, a book devoted to debunking many of the alarmist claims of environmental groups. He is attending the U.N.'s Conference of Parties or COP-10 meeting on climate change here. In an essay published Monday in the London Telegraph, Lomborg wrote that "global warming has become the obsession of our time" and "is the moral test of our age." Lomborg believes that global warming is real and is caused by C02, but he adds that mankind can "do very little about the warming." Lomborg, an associate professor of statistics at the University of Aarhus in Denmark, is in Buenos Aires trying to convince world governments to worry less about climate change and concentrate instead on what he considers solvable problems, such as AIDS, poverty and inadequate sanitation. Lomborg organized the "Copenhagen Consensus," an international team of economists and others who conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the world's most pressing problems. "So in a curious way, global warming really is the moral test of our time, but not in the way its proponents imagined. We need to stop our obsession with global warming and start dealing with the many more pressing issues in the world, where we can do [the] most good, first and quickest," Lomborg argued. According to Lomborg, any effects that global warming may have on people 100 years from now will be muted because poor nations are projected to be much wealthier and thus better equipped to deal with any climate complications. "The people who are going to be affected by it in 2100 are likely going to be much richer," Lomborg told an audience at the Universidad de Ciencias Monday night. "By the U.N.'s own scenarios, everyone [in poor nations] will be at least as rich as we are today in the developed world in 2100; and much more likely, they will be 2 to 4 times more wealthy than the developed world is today. Of course, the developed world will be even much richer than that," Lomborg predicted. "Imagine if you were a rich Chinese or a rich Rwandan or a rich Bolivian in 2100, looking back on 2004, saying how odd that the people of 2004 were so concerned about helping me a little bit through climate change and so relatively unconcerned about helping my grandfather and my great-grandfather who needed the help much, much more," he said. "If we can't do everything, let's make sure that we actually do something that is going to help the world a lot rather than just a little," Lomborg said. _________________________ Ad astra per aspera
Top

#159259 - 12/15/04 09:16 AM Re: There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming
Rick Donaldson Rick Donaldson Time Traveler Senior Investigator Registered: 05/04/01 Posts: 6973 Loc: Colorado Springs	quote: Is there anything which can reveal to us what the function of fossil fuels in the earth prior to our extraction of them, and what effect such global usage now has? Perhaps this question has been answered in one of Rick's article postings but i haven't been able to get through them all. I don't believe your question is answered in any of those articles. Let me see if I can assist. Oil has been used since ancient times, however the first modern oil well was drilled in 1859 by a man named Edwin Drake I believe. The Bible itself refers to "pitch" being used in building purposes, in Babylon. So, technically, the "easy" answer is mankind has used oil for centuries. We've not used it to the extent we do since the invention of the internal combustion engine. Coal too, one must assume (since it can be found, or could be found even when I was a child in veins on the sides of hills) has been used at least as long as oil has. The first major extraction of coal in the US happened in the mid 1700s. England used gas lights up until the 1950s or so, that burned a gas that was extracted from coal. One way to determine how much CO2 is/was in the atmosphere is to drill core samples of ice in Antarctic and at the Arctic. They can determine the "century" by the depth of the ice, and examine the ice and the trapped air bubbles, examining the amount of CO2 at any given time in history. There is a problem with this though, and it applies specifically to the "theory" of Global Warming, in that they can't give you EXACTING dates, but only general centuries of the ice. That is to say, a scientist can't specifically say "Let's look at 1776 and see how much CO2 was present". Thus, on a geological scale, checking ice and trapped air isn't going to give you a whole lot of evidence either way. So, the easy short answer is, there is no way to absolutely, positively say "Yes, the fossil fuel burning in the last 200 years has caused a problem". There is no way to say "No" to that question either with 100% certainty though. So, while my personal opinion of "Global Warming" is that it is BUNK, the reason for my beliefs this way is that there is simple zero evidence one way or the other. This is like saying, "There are Aliens among us, they are reptillian and they look like us". Without specific DNA evidence and some kind of "changeling" evidence that these aliens are among us, we can say what ever we want without evidence. Without that evidence... it's pure nonsense. _________________________ Ad astra per aspera
Top

#159260 - 12/15/04 09:25 AM Re: There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming
Phil Fiord Phil Fiord Administrator Member Registered: 06/11/01 Posts: 3777 Loc: Washington DC, but don't let i...	Originally posted by Mr.P.: quote: Do ice core specimens go back 8,200 years? Can they actually count each year in the core, like tree rings? How can they recognize and count thru any periods of annual melting, as opposed to snow accumulation? Do they have similar cores from Antartica? How far back do they go and do they correlate in any way with the northern cores? Mr. P, I did a bit of looking for good info to answer your questions and there is an abundance. Much is actually a bit tainted due to agenda, but method of determination info is pretty good. From This AUS website there is a focus on the 1950's to 1960's bomb test being used as a known marker for chemical change in the environment. The last segment explains a bit on ice cores in Antarctica and has a link to a pdf that has some good explantion on data collection and images of cores and a site in Antarctica. From above link: quote: 4. Age spread of air in ice cores Atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in the late 1950s to early 1060s produced a massive spike of radiocarbon in the atmospheric CO2. The onset of this spike occurred within 1 to 2 years around 1961. Air of this age is now largely enclosed in ice bubbles at the Law Dome site (Antarctica), and provides an excellent opportunity to directly determine both the mean age and spread of CO2 ages in the ice core bubbles. The mean age of CO2 of air enclosed in bubbles at the bottom of the firn (snow) was found to be around 9 years and the spread of ages is 12.5 years in this core. This make it possible to study atmospheric content variation on decadal or longer timescales from this ice core. the pdf is then listed as follows: quote: Determination of the age and age-spread of air in ice cores (National Greenhouse Advisory Committee brochure; *.pdf, 562 kB) _________________________ "Perception is the art of defining reality. Be careful who you allow to define it."
Top

Page 3 of 24

Last »

Previous Topic View All Topics

Index Next Topic

Moderator: Ryan Ruck, Rick Donaldson

Hop to: