Monday, December 13, 2010

Do Angels Dance on Pins? Yes, just like humans cause global warming

An article came to my attention showing that during a recent period (in geologic time), atmospheric CO2 fell over 1,000 ppm (its about 350 ppm now) while temperatures rose 7 degrees Centigrade (12.6 degrees Fahrneheit). Many questions came to mind. One, how much higher was global temperature then than now? Answer: about 12 degrees F. As the chart below shows, the Earth is usually warmer, and as expected, atmospheric CO2 was much higher because of the warmer seas and the higher rate of plant growth and subsequent decay. All natural, of course.


Now we are in a period of relatively low temperatures and atmospheric CO2. Atmospheric CO2 has increased about 80 ppm in the past 200 years, and warming increased a modest 0.6 degrees Centigrade (1 degree F) since the end of the Little Ice Age about 160 years ago.

Only Al Gore and his Acolytes would think that any of this is remarkable, or not natural. What is an icrease of 80 ppm for CO2 when previous fluctuations have been in thousands? What is an increase of 0.6 degrees C when geological records show rapid swings of 7 degrees C?

I have seen hundreds of peer-reviewed journal articles that establish such phenomena as a global Medieval Warm Period, a much warmer than present Holocene Optimum, and at least four other periods of equal or greater warming in the past 11,000 years. Arrayed against that is the discredited "hockey stick" of Mann et al, which among many shortcomings attempts to hide the divergence between what the trees are supposedly telling us compared to modern instument records. Can you have it both ways? Tree rings prove there was no Medieval Warm Period, but can't show current warming?

Concerning CO2 levels, 3% is produced by human activity, and 97% by the natural carbon cycle, which includes decaying plant material and the oceans. In terms of the nonexistent "greenhouse effect", water vapor contributes roughly 95% of atmospheric warming as the atmosphere acts as an air conditioner cooling and warming the Earth by a combination of thermodynamics and radiation.

CO2 is an insignificant trace gas, incapable of aborbing heat energy and reradiating it towards an area of greater energy concentration, the Earth. Simply, a cooler body cannot warm a warmer one.

All of the Warmist arguements are like speculating about the number of Angels who can dance on the head of a pin, without first proving the existence of Angels.


Anonymous said...

You should change the title of your blog to "Strong as an Ox and Dumb as a Brick." I won't even argue the merits of global warming. The Right doesn't really doubt the science, they challenge global warming because they fear efforts to fix it might be costly the rich and corporations. Like so much Republican propoganda, these arguments are sophistries, invented to defend a narrow vested interest. Even if you were convinced global warming was happening you wouldn't want to fix it because that wouldn't sit well with your wealthy masters.

Like the Soviets' Lysenkoism, you want to politicize science and twist it to fit your political agenda.

Major Combs said...

Anonymous: It's not you won't argue the merits of global warming; you can't. Al Gore's errors have already been exposed; the Vostok Ice Cores prove CO2 follows warming, not vice versa; today is not the hottest period in the recent past - there were at least six warmer in the past 10,000 years, including the Medieval Warm 800 years ago; and the Dust Bowl years of the 1930's were warmer than now. Climate change is natural, and it's been warming naturally since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850. Sea level rise naturally too - they've risen over 420 feet in the past 11,000 years (an average of four feet per century, compared to six inches in the past 100 years) since the end of the Ice Age. The Earth doesn't lie. There is abundant geological proof of all these cycles, and ample scientific proof that CO2 is a trace gas with no ability to trigger warming - or cooling either.
Russian was one of my two undergraduate majors (Accounting was the other), and anthropogenic global warming reminds me of the Communist's "Big Lie" propaganda.
I noticed in your comment that you mentioned no science, and never refuted anything. You'll have to do more than name calling to make your case. Please try.

Major Combs said...

Your name suits you,
Here is a link to a very good article
On the recovery from the Little Ice Age that explains today's warming is a natural extension of the warming that began in the 1800's at the end of the Little Ice Age.
You would have to agree that if this is so, it leaves little room to credit recent warming to CO2. If CO2 is responsible for post-1950, then what caused the equal or greater warming during the century prior to 1950?

Peter F. Foley said...

Anonymouse, Bricks just one of millions of objects that will be taxed as "Eco-Evil" CO2 being created during their production--I have a WIDELY vested interest in stomping out attempts to destroy my property and income sources.

The "Science" of the IPCC reports wouldn't win a Bronze medal at the short bus Science Fair.

If I did have masters, as those in a rigid Progressive hyarchy do, I perfer wealthy ones, they take so much better care of the help...(you never see a robber baron line the serfs up against a wall like the progressive/commies do over and over.)

There has been no promise of a "fix" the CO2-AGW Conmen know enough not to overpromise, just take credit for any lucky breaks and blame the unfaithful for any bad events.

FYI Lysenko actually has right about some things, who'd thunk it?

Big ? is why a few thousand psuedo-intellectuals think their mythical belief structure gives them the authority to rule the other 6 billion? Eco-fascists are just a side effect of the Soviets KGB efforts to impold the Western culture through suicidal memes such as the Anti-tech/anti-energy Eco-Nut Churches.

Keep your Jim Jones anti-social Dogma away from our cultures political square