Question: The ice core records shows that levels of CO2 have gone up and down with changes in average temperature over the last few hundred thousand years. Actually, the CO2 levels lag behind the temp changes by about 800 years, so we might assume that its not the CO2 thats causeing it. Its an important principle to distinguish between what is a cause and what is an effect when observing scientific phenomena. A curious thing however is that during ice ages there is relatively little vegetation on earth - the northern hemisphere being covered with ice. So you would expect there to be MORE CO2 in the atmosphere at that time - seeing as there is less vegetation to absorb it???
Sorry I cannot find any references but I have heard a theory that Global Warming will melt the ice caps which will cause the cooling of tropical waters which in turn has some kind of role in maintaining the earths atmosphere climate resulting an effect that will cause global freezing. So Global Warming will cause Global Freezing?
That doesn't matter: the increase in CO2 concentration has been measured, and confirmed by isotope analysis at Mauna Loa among other places to be from fossil fuel combustion. radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise Regardless of our relaive contribution to the total flux, we are contributing all of the accumulation - we are contributing more than the accumulation, actually, so somewhere something is damping our effects. We hope whatever it is keeps working, and is not getting overloaded (the accumulation seems to be ramping up, lately). btw: past cycles of warming, and past levels of CO2, only shed light on possible effects etc. It doesn't matter if past warmings were caused by CO2 or not, if this one is - as it seems.
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html is the link i think you were trying to post iceaura however i cant find anything that resembles your quote "That doesn't matter: the increase in CO2 concentration has been measured, and confirmed by isotope analysis at Mauna Loa among other places to be from fossil fuel combustion" (1996 published date) wiki has this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauna_Loa_Observatory Critics claim that the "worldwide" rising CO2 levels measured only at this site are man made, point out that it is probably due to the fact that these measurements are a result of its location on an active volcano. A very important point since new and coming environmantal legislation is using these and only these possibly erroneous CO2 measurements as a basis to justify sweeping and probably expensive measures to lower man made CO2 emissions. This page was last modified 08:31, 4 March 2007. currently trying to find other sites that do same or similair measurements
strange a quick google shows that rising co2 is also (only in first 3 pages) assosiated with flask measurements made on Lampedusa Island Lampedusa Distant from the Sicilian coast 205 km (150 from the island of Malta and 114 from Tunisia), it has superficial ones of 20.2 kmq, and the higher point is the mount Tree of the Sun (m.133). Its land limestone, lacking in water sources, has insufficient coltivations of cereals, legumi, and vineyards. Its cliffs are nearly copletamente full of rocks and full of coves, that are attended from the common seal. The center inhabited Lampedusa, with its port, and situated in one deep gulf. From the country it can be gone to the Maluk cove, to the Maccaferri tip and one series of coves. Lopadusa for the Roman, already lived in the age of the bronze, remained then to along deserted until 1843, when Ferdinand II of Borbone established a population of 700 inhabitants. Linosa The ancient Algusa or Aethusa is distant from the Sicilian coast 161 km, 114 from Pantelleria, and 42 from Lampedusa. It has superficial ones of 5.5 kmq, is of volcanic origin, emerged perhaps in the ancient fourth period, its higher point is the mount Volcano 195 m. It was colonized in 1845 from Ferdinand II of Borbone. once again co2 rising near a volcanic origined island.. any results not near volcanoes?? ;-)
Since anti-consumerism fascists can't convince people that their ideas are correct, in an intellectually open and honest atmosphere, they have to result to fear-mongering in an attempt to shut down human progress. This is just like the Rain Forests, the Ozone Layer, Endangered Species, etc... Their ideas are not wanted by the vast majority of humans, so they have to subvert the process in a backhanded way. The problem with this trend, and with these fascists, is that they have cried "Wolf" for so long, and been wrong and immoral so often, that if there really is a tragedy looming, nobody is going to give them any credibility. If global warming really is happening, and we are causing it, and it is a bad thing, and we can fix it for less money than the consequences will cost, I still hesitate to take anything that the anti-consumerists say to heart. They are a disgusting and ignorant lot that rails against all of the things which benefit humanity. I go out of my way to shop at WalMart just to support them from the vicious attacks that this crowd launches at them constantly. I think there are far more people like me, who silently combat them with our dollars, than there are hypocrites like them. I will never buy gas at a BP again just because of their envirowhacky commercials. I consider myself a social liberal, and these pretenders are social fascists from where I stand.
^ I agree bro. The anti-consumerists who just so happen to be environmentalists will take any issue possible and hijack it so long as it works to further their goals. Global Warming, Peak Oil, and Evil Corporations etc....all these ideas may perhaps contain a nugget of truth somewhere, but the crowd that supports them have radicalized to an extent where I simply hesitate to buy in 100%. I've said it before, Peak oil is just a ploy used by environmentalists to stop people from burning hydrocarbons. You just ass easily say ___________ is a ploy used by environmentalists to stop ___________________. They try to hijack the science behind these ideas to enact their activist policy.
One of the co-founders of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, left the organization when he realized that anti-capitalists had hijacked his baby. He now spearheads other organizations which try to make sure that capitalism is as green as possible. He is helping make realistic changes, while his anarchist friends make noise and do nothing useful. There is a difference between conservatism, which we should all strive for, and the impossible goal of preservation, which nature abhors. Change is inevitable. We should try to make as many good changes as possible, and make our bad changes as harmless as we can. The problem with the Global Warming debate is that nobody has convinced me that global warming is a bad thing. It could have more net benefits than harm. Since the movement is spearheaded by anti-capitalists, there is no question in their minds. The change is being made by *vehicles* and *power plants* and *consumerism* and *TV's*. These things are all evil. So the result of their use MUST also be evil. That, seriously, is the unspoken logic at work here. I want to know if we'd be better off if the Soviet tundra would thaw. If the Sahara would return to grasslands sooner than normal. If Greenland would support more farming. If new habitats for more varied life would arise in currently frozen wastelands. If coral reefs would spread and grow in places where none exist now. Will there be the destruction of some habitats? Absolutely. Will there be the creation of just as many new ones? There would have to be. If only the environmentalists understood the environments that they pretend to love, they would know that these changes will happen with or without our help. And shifting the timetable a few thousand years one way or the other is nothing when compared to the 4.5 billion year history of our rock. But, alas, we know that they aren't even concerned about the environment, or they would be cursing the Soviet Union for the environmental offenses waged under communism. They would have vile and venom for the tribes which clear-cut rainforests so they can grow crops to survive. Instead... they attack WalMart, McDonalds, GM, et al. So transparent. We should stop giving them a pass, and start calling people out on this bullshit. Force them to be intellectually honest with us about their motives.
>> It could have more net benefits than harm>>> well it is comforting to think of a warmer Earth, with new greenery and new uninhabited land to colonise.... LOL In truth the ice of frozen wastelands will thaw, and yes for a while new greenery will flourish until.... GLOBAL DROUGHT.... now there's a thought, now all land is barren and there is no food for the billions...... and terrestrial species all extinct..... Well that is only the initial consequences of the oil in the marine micro-layer Then because the sea is not evaporating water, it has become over hot.... it is overhot now..... how to get that heat out will lead to... LOL From that will come a GLOBAL ICE AGE.... oh only a massive one, that will cover the whole Earth.... OH and this will last just a few hundred million years.....well from then on, no one will care, LIFE here is as good as totally extinct....... That is if the world wide nuclear war doesn't come on line first, LOL....... It really is time to call revolution. The people must rise up and demand mitigating action... ooooh its really too late, but we should try for the sake of the children.. LOL, stupid Darwinian adaption will never solve anything, LOL. see http://www.omegafour.com/forum/
I never trust a word from anyone who says this. It comes from delusions of grandeur to think that *I* live in special times, and *I* will see the end of the world, etc. You are obviously not sane, welcome to my ignore list.
The critics "overlook" the isotope analysis, showing accumulation of fossil fuel combustion CO2, and no accumulation of volcanic origin CO2. They also "overlook" the seasonal fluctuations of CO2 at Mauna Loa, which match others elsewhere, and do not match any observed pattern of volcanic activity. Is your contention that atmospheric gas concentration measurements are being made at only two locations on the planet, both of them on volcanoes? The researchers at Mauna Loa have been there a while, taking CO2 measurements among many other atmospheric gas measurements, used for many purposes other than the recent global warming investigations, and are not complete fools, OK? btw: No quote. I label quotes. I cannot post links yet, being new.
