The more I research "Man Made Global Warming" the More I See How Bogus the Argument Is.?

Question

Refer to the graph plotting the CO2 levels in the Vostok Ice Cores - http://www.mongabay.com/images/external/2005/co2_var2.jpg

It is clear that there is less CO2 today than during the peak CO2 readings at anytime in the past, long before the industrial era.

The spike shown in the picture occurs in the future and is only a guess.

A close up of the chart shows that CO2 at present is declining.

Even the worse case in this graph has co2 levels rising 100ppm or just 0.01%

An increase of 100ppm means 999,900ppm remains unchanged.

Put that in perspective. On a 100 yard football field, 100ppm of the length of that field is a whooping thickness of a shoestring.

And for this people are running around in a panic? Please, tell me this just isn't just mass hysteria!

Answer 1

As a fellow skeptic, I share a responsibility to point out an error in your argument (just remember the hypocrisy coming from the other side that lets all kinds of outlandish claims fuel the hysteria as long as it supports "the cause".) to keep you on the up and up. And as you certainly have far more integrity than your detractors suggest - and in many instances, more integrity than your detractors - I am sure you will acknowledge your factual errors.



According to the chart you supplied, it DOES show that CO2 levels are presently higher at Mauna Loa than at any time indicated by the core. And it shows CO2 is presently increasing. Not future. Not a guess.



But that tingling of your skeptical "spidey senses" serves you right. Direct atmospheric measurement of CO2 levels and the extrapolation of atmospheric CO2 levels from ice cores are NOT the same thing, especially when taken from places that are separated by an immense geographic distance, have dramatically different climates ( toss in the active volcano which EASILY pumps out more CO2 than the relatively sparsely industrialized and populated Big Island - cows may still outnumber the locals - and it makes you wonder how this is heralded as the keystone of AGW evidence) and with entirely different techniques.



There is no evidence that the current levels of CO2 will be manifested at that same level (ppm) in future ice cores. It's possible that, say in 500 years, an ice core might indicate that 2007 CO2 levels are 100 ppm less than the 380 or so we get from direct, real-time measurements.



You also have to wonder about previous periods of global warming - if less ice is forming and more is melting, then where would the ice core evidence for those past warming periods be? It would seem to make sense that the past doesn't show warmer periods with greater CO2 levels - the ice "evidence" either didn't form or melted.



Keep on researching and holding their feet to the fire...

Answer 2

The spike shown in the picture does NOT occur in the future and is NOT a guess.



You are reading the graph wrong. The spike shown in the picture occurs in the year 2000 and is an actual measurement. The closeup part shows the years 1000 to 2000, with the level almost flat until about 1800 when it starts going up. And 1800 is when the industrial revolution started burning coal for steam engines and steel mills. The source below tells you where the numbers in the graph come from. The graph itself is a work of art based on the numbers from 5 different sources, only one of which is the Vostok ice core. The green line is Vostok ice core data and the black line is data from Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii published in 2004. The other colors are different data sources and none of them is an estimate or guess or projection, they are all actual measurements.



And CO2 is well mixed throughout the Troposphere world wide. There is very little variation from place to place, unless you measure inside the crater of a volcano or the tailpipe of a car where the readings would no doubt be higher. But ice cores preserve air bubbles from the area where the snow fell that makes up the glacier, and that was clearly not in a volcanic crater or car tailpipe.

Answer 3

I won't bore you with a lot of "Googled" info. any one can do that. Instead I'll just give you my uneducated opinion.

Yes I remember the CFC's fright back in the day too and gee, what happened to that? And as far as the guy that asked if you would eat a steak with .001 or something cyanide, well we probably do. (or at least some hormones or chemicals even worse already)



What I'm getting to is I believe it's more bunk to scare people than anything else. Tax grabber also possible and by the way, do you see BIG OIL really trying to change...me neither. Hybrid cars are a joke, just another "make the consumer feel good" thing. Anyone still have the car emission control (EPA) check in there town? See how good that worked..not!



This world has put up with drought, meteors and ice ages before. Only now we have sophisticated measuring and recording systems. Why should big brother government try and tackle changing the nature of the Earth when it can't even agree how to help it's own people in political problems?!



More hype than hope.

Answer 4

To a certain extent there is some mass hysteria created by politicians (who would have known?!) to distract the country (or the world) from more important, immediate matters. However, as I have written before on this board, global warming will continue no matter what we do or do not do. We are in an interglacial period and have been so for the last 10,000 years. How long this will last -at least another 10,000 years or more- it's hard to say for sure. There are too many other factors involved to say that if we stopped contributing to the growing CO2 problem we would stop global warming. We will not stop global warming. The Gulf Stream and other ocean currents play a large part in the changing climate of the world. The earth's orbit and its tilt also contribute. There are many other factors, but you can find more in any book on climateology. We have been in countless glacial and interglacial ages -cooling and warming- it's cyclical, and nature is in control -not us, certainly not politicians, although sometimes it seems like that. One day the human race will be extinct too! Think about it!

Answer 5

The bio-diversity of the planet is important to the infrastructure to sustain all life - the rainforests are in real terms the lungs of the earth the green canopy of the rainforest breathes - inhales to some extent exales - the rainforest absorbs carbon from the atmosphere and converts through a self regulative process nutrients and oxygen back into the air we breathe to stay healthy - what is happening people - you are taking the infrastructure away that gives us the climate to breathe clean air with all the value that brings good heath to the nutrients in the food harvested from the good earth - do you want dry arid land - failed crops - famine - droughts and temperatures that melts the ice caps on the mountain tops that flood the rivers encreasing sea levels around the world ever more unpredictable weather patterns don't blind me with geek mathematical measurement - the planet is in real danger with global warming - scenarios - rainforest eco systems dry enough to burn - forest fires - spreading to every continent - swings of dramatic changes in sudden climate change - wake up people - there is something we can all do to reverse these trends - otherwise - what option will there be to sustain life as we know it on this planet - scarry you better beleive it is happening - now today - tommorow another day closer - what are governments doing to reforest the planet - can anyone say for sure - please let me know - i am sceptical - everyones chasing the consumer mentality - consume everything you can and waste the planet - the population of the earth today is living in a consciousness that does not care about sustainabilty and lifestyle management - the resourses of the planet should be cared for and nurtured.

Answer 6

And everyone forgets the real science involved because they get so caught up on the possibility that a polar bear might drown.



Let's look at some facts.



For one thing, humans emit so little CO2 compared to everything else in nature that their effect is negligible.



The greenhouse layer is good even though we don't really contribute much to it. Without it we would freeze each night as the sun went down, like other planets in our solar system.



Global warming is a good thing. Even though humans have no effect on it, the planet is much more prosperous during the warming periods, according to climate history. And a prosperous planet produces more CO2. So when CO2 levels are up it means the planet is in good shape.



The environmentalists had more of a following during the 70's when they said we were going into an ice age because of "global cooling." They have a lot more money now, and they always come up with a new twist.



Most reputable and unbiased scientists conclude that there's no evidence whatsoever that humans have any effect at all on the climate.



We should continue to reduce pollution and statistics show that in the US our pollution levels have dropped significantly in the last few decades. Not so with Europe and other parts of the world, but it's still a good idea to clean up after ourselves. It's not good to fall for hoaxes that result in heavy taxation and restrictions of our lifestyles.



Notice that the very rich are involved in this "global warming" hoax. They want you to walk to work and lower your thermostat so they won't feel as guilty flying around in private jets and living in multi-million dollar homes. They're counting on ignorant people to fall for it. Ones that don't know science or maybe can't even read a science book.



We have some very real dangers out there in the form of crazy totalitarian leaders all over the world. Many have said they will destroy us completely when they get a chance. And we're worried about this "global warming" nonsense ??

Answer 7

I'll give you another mass hysteria environmental situation. In the late 80's their was the belief there were holes in the ozone layer. The ozone layer protects us from the suns UV rays. I was in 7th grade when this was going on. We were told we would not be able to go out in the sun without getting a sun burn and eventually skin cancer in the next 10 years. It has been almost 20 years and nothing has changed. I can still go outside without worry. The holes were above the poles and believed to be caused by the use of CFC's which is a cooling agent. In recent years scientist believe the holes above the poles have always been there. This is the same situation as global warming. In 20 years there will be something else that is going to detroy the earth.

Answer 8

It's not true that the spike is "in the future". Current levels of CO2 are above 380 ppm, well above any of the pre-industrial values.



Most of the atmosphere is nitrogen and oxygen. A change of 100 ppm is quite a significant fractional increase in carbon dioxide. Unlike nitrogen and oxygen, carbon dioxide is opaque at some infrared wavelengths. The actual amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are not what's important---what's important is the overall opacity of the infrared spectrum of the Earth's atmosphere. The atmosphere could become opaque at all infrared wavelengths, resulting in GW of 30 C above current temperatures, with only 1% of the gas being various greenhouse gasses.

Answer 9

I think you need to learn how to read a graph. The graph you linked to clearly shows that CO2 levels as of the year 2000 is significantly higher than in the past....

Answer 10

i would like to remind you that 99% of the atmosphere is not greenhouse gases, so that shoestring is a big freaking deal.



99%:

O2- not a greenhouse gas - not IR active - no dipole moment change



N2 - not a greenhouse gas - not IR active - no matter how you bend it the dipole moment is the same = 0



Ar - can't even be bent

(no monatomic or linear diatomic gas is IR active)



<1%:

CO2- electronegativity difference between C-O, dipole moment changes upon bending - it is a greenhouse gas



H2O - same thing



CH4 - same thing





ect - same thing



for a molecule to be IR active, it must be able to undergo a change in dipole moment when it vibrates.

Answer 11

You do not even have to look at proxy data to disprove global warming. The greenhouse works in the atmosphere, not at ground level. If you look at the Tropospheric temperature record over the last ten years, it has been cooling. Ten years is almost an entire solar cycle.

Answer 12

Your graph shows CO2 levels as they are now. That's not a projected future rise. Levels today are about 380ppm. Look at the data from Moana Loa running from about 1965 to 2000.



http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~kushnir/MPA-ENVP/Climate/slides/Moana.Loa.CO2.gif



And about 99% of that unchanged 999,900 million parts of the atmosphere is not comprised of greenhouse gases. Making your point irrelevant anyway.



Also, your statement that CO2 levels have been higher in the past is completely meaningless to this discussion. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether humans are affecting the climate.

Answer 13

To put ppm in perspective, how would you like to eat a steak with 350-400 ppm of cyanide? That little change (.01%) is enough to throw of the climate and ecological balance, and possible initiate a run-away heat effect.

Something this big supported by scientific MAJORITY should cause hysteria.



The chart proves my point. It's going left, not right.

That means WE are ◄, an the time line begins at ►.

Answer 14

The more I learn the more I think it's all just junk science. The outer planets are warming too, and I don't think it's humans that are responsible for Jupiter warming.

Answer 15

Politicians need some way to steal more of our tax dollars.

Answer 16

It would simply advise you to take some chemistry and science classes to help you understand why your understanding of facts does not make sense.



Also some math for the scales would help.

Answer 17

lets go burn the forest!

Answer 18

Isn't it nice to be part of the sane minority?