Posted on 03/19/2014 6:15:30 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
(I did that sketch for my granddaughter back when atmospheric CO2 was "only" 360 PPM.)
Today the claim is 400 PPM.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(See my next comment...)
With any substance other than CO2, a 0.0004 concentration would be referred to as a “trace”. Politics is trumping science, big time.
Let's organize ‘The Great Carbon Belch’.
Everyone start their cars and let them run in the driveway until the tanks run dry for a week straight. Same with the lawn mowers.
Let jet engines idle at airports, and refuel them in the air.
I'd wager the CO2 sensor is probably located over a fumarole in the Kilauea volcano.
Just you wait until my compost starts cookin’....
I think it’s clear that there is a causal relationship between CO2 levels and temperatures. I don’t think there is a reasonable way to doubt that, just look at Venus for goodness sakes.
The question really is: does our contribution to the total CO2 amount in the atmosphere have a significant impact on the climate?
One factor the environmentalists seem to neglect is the very history they point to in an attempt to bolster their theory. In the article above and the graph you have provided, one can clearly see a natural trend towards rises and falls in CO2 amounts throughout recent geologic history.
A truly reasonable scientist would look at these data and conclude, if anything, we may indeed be in a warming trend but this trend is probably due to some as of yet unidentified factor that has clearly operated in the past, and had nothing to do with humanity.
Let’s examine your graph again. The period between the global increase in temperatures seems to be rather regular, with a period varying between 10 and 20,000 years.
Armed with this information, and the fact the period observed occured at least 4 other times with this same frequency, and the last spike occured about 12,000 years ago, if anything we are left with the distinct possibility (if not probability although admittedly statistical analysis cannot be done given such a small sample size) we are headed towards a warming trend, but not one caused by man’s influence rather one perfectly natural for this geologic epoch.
The truly vital and critical question to ask and answer is: is our CO2 output a significant portion of the total CO2 in the atmosphere? I have never seen this question addressed directly, in a rigorous way, and therefore I suspect the truly scientific and mathematic answer is “no”. I suspect this because it’s never discussed, this specific mechanism of man’s contribution and it’s effect on the environment, and the fact (if indeed it is a fact which I again suspect it is) that our contribution is negligible doesn’t fit too well with the agenda. The agenda being of course population control via the state.
Because “everyone” (everyone by implication who is smart) knows: humans=”bad”.
But first let me get in my guess:
At the end of the runway?
Perhaps, maybe, could be, most likely, possibly, etc.
Two words:
Dinosaur Flatulance.
And the warmalarmists claim that minuscule amount of carbon dioxide will destroy us...
Bravo Sierra!!!
OK. So during pre-history, the Co2 was high.
What natural phenomenon caused that, dear scientists?
And can you prove to me that that natural phenomenon is no longer in existence?
No you can’t.
Do I get a cookie?
... the hourly levels at Mauna Loa will soon drop as spring kicks in across the northern hemisphere, trees budding forth an army of leaves hungrily sucking CO2 out of the sky.
While I am neither a "Climate Scientist", nor have I played one on TV nor did I spend last night at a Holiday Inn Express, it does appear to me that, according to the above statements, atmospheric CO2 concentration is a least as dependent on the amount of plant growth as it is on SUV's & fossil fuel burning.
Long, harsh winters = higher CO2 concentrations.
Comments?
Ummm... the only "cookies" I have on hand are -- "Milk-Bone" brand. [So, I doubt you'd want one...] '-)
How much of the “Greenhouse Effect” is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account— about 5.53%, if not.
This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn’t factored into an analysis of Earth’s greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
That is another factor to consider here in the final analysis. Where are these sensors located?
I think the story in the OP about the one located near a volcano is laughable. I’d like to THINK this obvious bias is accounted for in some way.
Somehow I don’t think it is. Call me cynical.
However,
"During the ice ages of the Pleistocene Epoch, global sea levels fell significantly in many areas around the world as the Earth's water and precipitation became frozen in large continental ice sheets and glaciers. As these ice sheets and glaciers grew, global sea levels fell and in several places across the planet different land bridges became exposed. The Bering Land Bridge between eastern Siberia and Alaska was one of these."
A Geographic Overview of the Bering Land Bridge
Facts? Who needs facts? Just make up things as you go along. After all, we're trying to save the planet! It's for the children, right?
I’m waiting for the OXYGEN level to hit 30% like in prehistoric times! Think of the grass fires!
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.