The Great Global Warming Swindle

Really. Back to the 16 year period again. Hooo boy. Let me ask you. Are you stupid? Do you know anything about long term trends and such terms as cherry picked? Why not use 50 years? What about 100?. What about looking at something relevant like the 500 year chart? 16 years means shit in climatology.

If you did you would clearly see the effect of CO2.

To say CO2 leads to cooling is like saying you're brilliant. IOW it's ridiculous.

 

Analysis of the effects of "super" volcanoes in the past have shown that the gases and ejecta from them resulted in global cooling. The CO2 and particulate matter in the upper atmosphere increased the earth's albedo so more solar flux was reflected away from the earth and temperatures decreased.

Futurecurrents is confused about CO2.

To him CO2 is merely a greenhouse gas and he thinks that its presence must result in a greenhouse effect with latent heat being trapped in the atmosphere. He seems unable to comprehend that we are orbiting a star, basically a large fusion reactor that is only 8.5 minutes away so far as radiation travelling to us. The sun dominates our climate and life processes on earth and it always will. Its all about solar energy flux and the Earth's reflection coefficient or albedo. Albedo has a surface component (the reflectivity of the surface of the earth) and an atmospheric component (the reflectivity of the atmosphere).

The last significant ice age was thought to have been triggered by the eruption of a vast string of volcanoes in what is now Siberia. Those volcanoes comprised a super volcano system similar to what we have in Yellowstone National Park. When the entire system in Siberia erupted such a large quantity of gases and dust were thrown into the upper atmosphere that the atmospheric reflection coefficient of the earth increased to the point where the climate got cold and polar ice began to encroach north and south. As more ice formed more solar energy was reflected away from the Earth due to the high surface albedo contribution of ice and it grew colder still. More ice, less energy reaching the Earth's surface. Eventually nearly the entire Earth was covered in ice. I say nearly because some species survived like crocodiles so there must have still been some temperate bodies of water near the equator even during the coldest portion of the ice age.

An ice age is the scenario that should be feared, not a warming scenario.

 

Fuck the stupid video. I showed a rebuttal video that showed how what a bunch of bullshit it is. If your argument has to rely on a video it 's a pretty poor one. I show charts and you show some bullshit video.

By saying there is no proof the extra CO2 is from man just shows how ignorant you are.

 

Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.


One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase.

Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

Isotope geochemists have developed time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2. One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time. If the ratio of 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 goes up or down, so does the 13C/12C of the tree rings. This isn’t to say that the tree rings have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere – as noted above, plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes, but as long as that preference doesn’t change much, the tree-ring changes wiil track the atmospheric changes.

Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals and sponges — whose carbonate shells reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric chemistry — show that this decline began about the same time as in the atmosphere; that is, when human CO2 production began to accelerate in earnest.***

In addition to the data from tree rings, there are also of measurements of the 13C/12C ratio in the CO2 trapped in ice cores. The tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere — which took many thousand years — was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years.

 

The point these charts make is that there is no more evidence that CO2 leads to global warming than there is that it leads to global cooling. Any thesis that man-made CO2 leads to global warming is simply a theory and in no way an established scientific fact. There are plenty of charts over many different time periods that demonstrate the exact opposite - that CO2 periods rose during times of falling temperatures.

 

Yes, so? We know aerosols from volcanoes suppress temperatures for a few years. Don't conflate that with the CO2 released. The CO2 does nothing to cool the lower atmosphere..

Is CO2 a greenhouse gas or not?

It seems no-one wants to say it.

 

I have been kind enough to read/watch any of the information you posted. I have pointed out the obvious faults in the information you posted.

It appears that you mind is closed and you are totally unwilling to read or watch any information opposed to your pre-conceived views. Effectively for you 'global warming' is a religion, not a science based perspective that's open to change with new information.

Watch the video and learn... open your closed mind.

 

You are dead wrong about CO2 and you are wetting your pants about a phenomena that does not exist.

You can keep repeating yourself ad nauseum and we will simply do the same. AGW does not exist. Get a life.

 

Really? So you're publicly stating that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Or that it has not gone up 35 % from man? Which? Both?

Where is your logic? You have none. I thought you were an engineer?
You have no facts on your side. You have no logic. You deny the most irrefutable aspects of the science like that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it has gone from up man.

Frankly your argument is pathetic.

It purely stems from your politics, not science or logic.

 

Funny how you think everyone who opposes your conclusion is doing so on the basis of politics but everyone that supports your position is doing so for scientific reasons.

Once again a rational unbiased person would see that as obvious nonsense (ie magical thinking on your part).



PS HELL ,I'm kicking myself in the ass for being too nice to you.
Maybe it's the pre-cursor to the flu or something.