DEDICATED TO EXPOSING DISINFORMATION AND PROPAGANDA AND TO PROMOTING UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS - WITH SHARP ANALYSIS AND BLUNT COMMENTARY. NO ADS. NO TIP-JAR. JUST THE TRUTH.
DEDICATED TO EXPOSING DISINFORMATION AND PROPAGANDA AND TO PROMOTING UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS - WITH SHARP ANALYSIS AND BLUNT COMMENTARY. NO ADS. NO TIP-JAR. JUST THE TRUTH.
8 comments:
Of course, when you find an article that disputes climate research into the past 10,000 years, you quickly post it, saying that the measurements are all wrong and we don't know much about whether the earth is hotter now than it has been in the last several thousand years. When it's 550 million years old, it immediately becomes proof.
Of course, assuming that the reconstructions are correct, 550 million years ago, the situation on earth was quite different than it was now. Increased volcanic activity not only upped the CO2 levels, but also upped the particulate matter in the atmosphere, giving a cooling effect. Additionally, as the article states, the sun wasn't as bright 550 million years ago. As I've repeated about 30 times, but you never seem to quite get, no one claims that CO2 is the ONLY factor in the earth's climate just that it is an important factor. It's always interesting just how far you have to go to find your "dispositive proof", yet strangely, hundreds of scientific papers supporting global warming theory and its simple mechanics are simply discounted. Additionally, all scientists in this article agree that for the last 50 million years the correlation between CO2 levels and climate changes. Wow, what an indictment of the theory.
So, as per usual, I'll ask the question that you continually cut and run from. What possible proof could be presented that the theory of anthropogenic global warming is correct? Just how high is the bar. It's apparently very, very low for articles that might "disprove" it.
"This is dispositive. This proves that CO2 has no effect on global warming"
It proves nothing of the sort.When are you going to learn to read?
peter: if increased levels of co2 in the atmosphere caused global warming now, the it would always.
this article says that co2 was once higher than now and temps were not; therefore co2 cannot be the cause of the current trend.
experts say that is an oversimplification of a complex picture of natural variation. The fluctuations in the gas levels, they say, often fall out of step with the planet’s hot and cold cycles, undermining the claimed supremacy of carbon dioxide.
“It’s too simplistic to say low CO2 was the only cause of the glacial periods” on time scales of millions of years, said Robert Giegengack, a geologist at the University of Pennsylvania who studies past atmospheres. “The record violates that one-to-one correspondence.”
if increased levels of co2 in the atmosphere caused global warming now, the it would always.
I already responded to this line of reasoning above and bolded it so you would have a hard time missing it.
I have to assume that your total and complete acceptance of climate data through proxies from 550 million years ago as proof means that you also accept all reconstructed data up to that point. Is there any reason it doesn't?
"undermining the claimed supremacy of carbon dioxide."
This highlights a fundamental misunderstanding, one that you continually share with the author of this article. No one claims that CO2 is the only or supreme climate causing agent. There are lots of factors that can be more important that CO2 in driving climate. Certainly, H20 causes more of the greenhouse effect than CO2 does right now. The important point you can't grasp is that recent warming is caused by increases in CO2. If we were to have a very major volcanic eruption tomorrow (Krakatoa level), releasing tons and tons of particulate matter into the atmosphere, this would quickly override the CO2 effects to date for some time (probably years). Absent that or other major changes though, CO2 is what is currently driving global warming.
“It’s too simplistic to say low CO2 was the only cause of the glacial periods” on time scales of millions of years, said Robert Giegengack
Right, just like it's too simplistic to say that high CO2 was the only factor 500,000,000 years ago. This should be totally obvious.
joe;
i hope ypu haven't sprained your neck from that SOMERSAULT you performed in your last comment!!!
WOW! a breathtaking reversal in one paragraph:
you wrote:
"No one claims that CO2 is the only or supreme climate causing agent. There are lots of factors that can be more important that CO2 in driving climate. Certainly, H20 causes more of the greenhouse effect than CO2 does right now. The important point you can't grasp is that recent warming is caused by increases in CO2. If we were to have a very major volcanic eruption tomorrow (Krakatoa level), releasing tons and tons of particulate matter into the atmosphere, this would quickly override the CO2 effects to date for some time (probably years). Absent that or other major changes though, CO2 is what is currently driving global warming."
you staart by admitting that c02 is NOT the supreme cause of our current trend, and then end by stating that it is.
it cannot be both.
it isn't.
man-made co2 is NOT a major factor.
as you say natural atmospheric H2O is much more prevalent. man-made co2 is MINISCULE by comparioson.
implicit in this admission is the fact that kkyoto-like regimes are total bullshit - merely Leftist tax regi8mes intedned to shackle free enterprise.
As usual, you fail to understand the simplest points. Current global warming is largely due to man-driven increases in CO2. However, that's certainly not to say that CO2 is the only climate factor possible now or ever. H20 is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2. It contributes more to overall greenhouse warming that CO2 does. That's another simple fact that no one disputes. However, when the temperature is rising, it makes sense to look to factors that are also changing (and aren't dependent variables to begin with) to determine why. H20, by and large hasn't been changing. The CO2 level has. Does that make any sense to you?
Once again, you go back to Kyoto as if this is a disputed point between us. I think that the best way to avoid restrictions like the Kyoto protocols is to come up with alternative, scientific solutions. You think that the best way to do it is to ignore science and pretend that no problem exists.
This is an interesting paper, but I would not say that it contains enough hard evidence to disprove global warming from man-made causes. However, I found http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm more convincing and am looking for additional sources that address the paper's points either positively or negatively(but factually).
Post a Comment