CTH Public Relations

• Torture by CO2HOG [May 02, 2012, 10:19:42 PM]
• China by CO2HOG [March 31, 2012, 02:24:13 PM]
• Global Warming Watch by TonyBlair [October 09, 2011, 06:41:37 PM]
• Solar Panel Doubts by TonyBlair [September 02, 2011, 08:25:23 AM]
• Barack Hussein Obama, Emp... by TonyBlair [August 10, 2011, 08:57:54 PM]
• National Debt Clocks and ... by Counter [August 08, 2011, 10:30:42 AM]
• Scanner or Pat Down? by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:09:51 PM]
• Rise of the Police State by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:01:03 PM]
• Who can we trust? by Vocal Observer [June 08, 2011, 01:07:59 PM]
• Anthony Wiener's wiener i... by CarolinaBuckeye [June 01, 2011, 11:29:22 PM]
• Democrat's Culture of Cor... by TonyBlair [May 18, 2011, 06:55:46 AM]
• Hey Obama..You want Taxes... by Vince the Fox [April 21, 2011, 03:12:25 AM]
• Obama Policy Watch by TonyBlair [April 20, 2011, 06:56:14 AM]
• George W. Obama by TonyBlair [April 19, 2011, 06:11:57 AM]
• The Religion of Peace Upd... by TonyBlair [April 12, 2011, 06:43:20 AM]

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

Members

• Total Members: 329
• Latest: boborians

Stats

• Total Posts: 40602
• Total Topics: 5158
• Online Today: 19
• Online Ever: 252
• (April 10, 2011, 07:49:21 AM)

Users Online

Users: 0
Guests: 19
Total: 19

EducateWorthington.org

The 912 Project - Glenn Beck

912 Group of Central Ohio

Please let me know if you'd like your link added

[We could say [Democrats] spend money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors. It would be unfair, because the sailors are spending their own money. --Ronald ReaganAl Gore didn't invent the internet, he invented global warmingThe welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants - CamusThe person who advocates government planning of the economy always assumes that it is his plan that will be put into effect. --Hayek]

Humans tip balance of atmospheric CO2
Wednesday, April 28, 2004

Robert Martin suggested in his recent letter that anthropogenic (human-produced) sources of carbon dioxide play a negligible role in global warming. His assertion that anthropogenic sources contribute only 4.5 percent of all atmospheric CO2 is misguiding, and his portrayal of the climate system is naive.

The most substantial synthesis of climate-change research, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international group of several thousand scientists, indicates that the recent increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases is a key contributor to the present warming.

What Martin failed to mention is that natural sources of CO2 emissions are balanced by a nearly equal uptake of atmospheric CO2 at the earth’s surface (by the ocean and vegetation). In the absence of an anthropogenic component, CO2 concentrations would remain approximately in balance in the current climate.

The "small" contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide Martin cited creates an imbalance in the system, causing a net increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere of about 0.5 percent per year.

In addition, the most recent estimates indicate that about four times as much CO2 is produced by anthropogenic sources than Martin cited.

Finally, I discourage Martin from promoting a sense of security to owners of sport utility vehicles. Consider that a Hummer (6.5 mpg) produces about 24 tons of CO2 in an average year of driving. Compare this with a typical sedan (26 mpg) that produces about 6 tons of CO2 per year. It is no wonder that Americans, who constitute 5 percent of the world’s population, account for 30 percent of global CO2 emissions.

The data I have cited come from the panel’s report, "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis" and Wallace Broecker (2003).

MEREDITH KELLY

Climate scientist

Byrd Polar Research Center

Ohio State University

Columbus

 

Deconstructing Meredith Kelly's argument and Ad Hominine Attacks:

Ice Core Paleoclimatology Group Members

The take home message here is that if I speak the truth I won't lose my job, if Merideth does, her job is no longer justified. If she was to say that the sun causes global warming, she is out of a job. The only way she keeps her job is if she can prove man causes global warming. This is a huge conflict of interest. Because of this, enviromentalists have reached a conclusion, and seek to find data to support their conclusion. This is backwards from every other field of science. Data usually shapes the conclusion, the conclusion should not shape the data. They simply data mine for correlations that fit their conclusion, and discount all others. That is why they ignore Mother Nature, solar cycles, volcanos, etc etc. Just think about it, here is a simple regression of CO2.  CO2= 0.95 Natural Causes + 0.05 Man Made caused. Clearly man is the highly INSIGNIFICANT variable in this model, and yet enviromentalists make them the only variable CO2 = 100% man made as pointed out in the original AP article. The other regression is Global Warming = 0.90 Sun + 0.05 Water vapor + 0.05 other green house gasses. Once again, they treat the most insignificant variable as the only variable. Global Warming = 100% green house gasses other than water vapor. In any real science you first rule out the most significant variables first, which has not happened. They simply rushed to judgement, as they did with the Ozone Hole, 10 year supply of oil, the coming ice age etc etc and immediately point the finger at man. These is the approach of activists, not scientists. Below are plenty of links to back my position. You decide how naive I am.

Robert Martin suggested in his recent letter that anthropogenic (human-produced) sources of carbon dioxide play a negligible role in global warming. His assertion that anthropogenic sources contribute only 4.5 percent of all atmospheric CO2 is misguiding, and his portrayal of the climate system is naive.

Do the math, I simply quoted existing research. I challenge Merrideth to prove that Mother Nature isn't by far the greatest producer of CO2. Every instance of global warming and cooling in the past has been due to solar cycle, why would anyone think this time is different? Politics?
Do the math, man only creates a small % of CO2

Here is some of the evidence pointing to solar cycles.
Nature's article on Solar Cycles

Here is the original letter to the editor
Original Letter to the Editor

Here is the carbon cycle, once again, Mother Nature is the main contributor of CO2.
Carbon Cycle

Forget Global Warming, these same "experts" seem to suffer from Kerry's disease, they argue out of both sides of their mouths. They claim global warming and a coming ice age. They can't make up their own minds.
Coming Ice Age

More evidence the sun causes global warming. Notice how Merrideth didn't address the issue, she simply called my niave.
Sun as cause

The National Center also reached the same conclusion I did.
National Center reached the same conclusion as me

More evidence of the sun as the cause.
Sun causes global warming

Note how not all "experts" are as gullabel as Merrideth.
Not all scientists are gullable

Look out, ice age coming. LOL
Coming Ice Age

Remember the Ozone Hole CFC hoax? 20 years after CFCs were band the Ozone Hole is still growing in size. It appears banning CFCs has caused the ozone hole to GROW!! LOL
Ozone Hole


Mother Nature has a built in mechanism to accelerate Global Warming. As the sun heats the oceans, more water vapor enters the atmosphere, causing more global warming. Mother Nature isn't stupid, she is doing this for a reason. The "experts" just seem intent on believing they know more than Mother Nature. Vater vapor, not CO2 is the main Greenhouse Gas, and it is all due to Natural Cause.
Although global warming may be the reason ocean evaporation is increasing, Curry believes that increased evaporation may itself, in turn, be accelerating global warming. Water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas that can trap more heat in the atmosphere as evaporation rates increase.

Finally, I discourage Martin from promoting a sense of security to owners of sport utility vehicles. Consider that a Hummer (6.5 mpg) produces about 24 tons of CO2 in an average year of driving. Compare this with a typical sedan (26 mpg) that produces about 6 tons of CO2 per year. It is no wonder that Americans, who constitute 5 percent of the world’s population, account for 30 percent of global CO2 emissions.

Merrideth, do you really think SUVs are a problem when burning a single tree can produce the year equivalent of a SUV's CO2 into the atmosphere? Just how much CO2 is put into the air when 6 MILLION acres of OVERLY DENSE forests burn? From the estimate below the forests are 4 to 9 times too dense, so burning 6 million acreas is the equivilent of 24 to 54 million acres of a health forest. Calculate that amount of CO2 production. WHile I have not been able to find the data, I once read that a single Volcano produces more CO2 and Grenhouses gasses than man has created during the entire industrial era. Also, Mt St Helens released the pollution equivalent of a Hiroshima Bomb every SECOND for 9 HOURS!! Man could never polute that much.

Forest Fires are a huge release from a carbon sink


Inventories done in ponderosa pine forests in 1910 show forests with 20 to 40 square feet of basal area per acre, he says. Today, New Mexico's forests commonly have from 80 to 180 square feet. Research indicates that fire hazard can be significantly reduced if densities are taken down to about 50 square feet.

Water Vapor from natural sources is the major green house gas, carbon has very little to do with it.

What Martin failed to mention is that natural sources of CO2 emissions are balanced by a nearly equal uptake of atmospheric CO2 at the earth’s surface (by the ocean and vegetation). In the absence of an anthropogenic component, CO2 concentrations would remain approximately in balance in the current climate.

The "small" contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide Martin cited creates an imbalance in the system, causing a net increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere of about 0.5 percent per year.

As Merrideth seems to imply, a small amount of CO2 would throw the system out of balance. If this were true, I challenge her to prove or provide data that 1. The Oceans are saturated with CO2 and can not absorb any more and 2. That trees and plants can no longer grow and absorb CO2. Merrideth doesnt seem to understand that Mother Nature has built in buffers to absorb the extra CO2. Read some of the links about the forest densite if you want to see where all the CO2 goes.


THe Oceans need to be saturated, or else they will absorb the CO2

The most substantial synthesis of climate-change research, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international group of several thousand scientists, indicates that the recent increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases is a key contributor to the present warming.

Many many many scientists disagree on this, as anyone would that knows anything about multi-variable modeling and projections into the future. They simpley aren't accurate, simply ask a mathmatician. Below is a link to many who disagree with Merrideth. BTW, Bill Clinton would not sign the KYOTO PROTOCOL, nor would the Senate. Seems they don't buy it either.

Over 17,000 scientists have signed a petition saying, in part, there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

More data


In all seriousness, Merrideth demonstrates how these "experts' go through life with blinders on seeing only what they want to see.

1. They totally discount history, and what has caused global changes in the past. The Sun.
2. They totally disount any voices of opposition, regardless of the data.
3. These "experts" have a lousy record. They first claimed a coming ice age back in the 70's, now it is global warming. They also claimed a 10 year supply of oil. Read Thomas Maltus for some even worst predictions. Also, don't forget the ozone hole keeps growing, and there are no long term studies on it. It was first measured in the late 50's.
4. Their models are highly inaccurate, as are all multi-variable models used for predicting the future. If this could be done, they would model the stock market and become rich. It simply can't be done. They can't even model a simple thing like the S&P 500, let alone the global climate.
5. Mother Nature has built in mechanisms to accelerate Global Warming. I don't know why, but she has found them useful. This is what would make real interesting research. Environomentalist are really arguing with Mother Nature.
6. Over the last 100 years we have disrupted the carbon cycle, not through industrialization, but through forest fire prevention and agriculture. The forest are huge carbon sinks, pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere over the last 100 years, and now the forest fires are suddenly throwing it back into the atmosphere overnight. SUV's have nothing to do with it. Burning Yellowstone does.
7. Unless the Oceans are saturated with CO2, they will absorb what man produces. News plants will too. This is not a static model as Merrideth would have you believe.
8. Water vapor, not CO2 is the most significant Green House Gas.
9. If man produces 5% of CO2, and Nature 95%. Wouldn't a real scientist recognize that a small change in Mother Nature easily overwhelms anything man can do? A 5% change in Mother Nature's CO2 equals a 100% change in Man's production of CO2. A variation of only 5% of Mother Nature would produce the equivilent of 100% of Man's production. Isn't it more likely that we tampered with Mother Nature, ie increased forest density, than a small 5% produced by man is doing so much? Forests are the huge carbon sinks, and termites are most responsible for natural causes of CO2.
10. If the earth is warming, why hasn't the sea level been rising? MAny Pacific Islands are only a few feet above sea level and would have disappeared.

Pacific atoll nations appear to have average rates of sea level rise, suggesting that they are neither sinking nor uplifting.


More data

The Skeptical Environmentalist

Other OSU researchers disagree

Other views

Satellite photos are mixed on global warming

FACT: Senator Kerry voted against implementing the Kyoto Accord. On July 25, 1997, the U.S. Senate sent then President Clinton a clear message in passing the Byrd/Hagel Resolution by a vote of 95 to 0.

Global Warming Organization

Impacts of Global Warming: Why the Alarmist View is Wrong

Martin,

Let us treat CO2 concentration thru time from the beginning of civilization (say 3000bc) to now as a closed bounded function.  Pretty reasonable, yes?

A closed bounded function attains a maximum and a minimum.  Do we have estimates of what these extreme values were?  When they occured?

Just kinda wondered.

Closed  

GLOBAL warming looms, in many people's minds, as one of the biggest threats facing the planet. Over the past 20 years researchers have gathered evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is causing temperatures to rise. However, the exact pace of global warming, as well as the size of mankind's contribution to the warming trend, remain uncertain. Aside from these issues is the question of precisely how greenhouse-gas emissions should be abated, assuming that they need to be reduced at all. In a new paper for the Copenhagen Consensus project, William Cline of the Centre for Global Development and the Institute for International Economics examines these topics.

My Webpage

Natural climate change may have started civilisation. And the spread of farming may have caused as much global warming as industry is causing now

PEOPLE, like most animals, are naturally lazy. So the ascent of mankind is something of a mystery. Humans who make their livings hunting and gathering in the traditional way do not have to put much effort into it. Farmers who rely on rain to water their crops work significantly harder, and lead shorter and unhealthier lives. But the real back-breaking, health-destroying labour is that carried out by farmers who use irrigation. Yet it was the invention of irrigation, at first sight so detrimental to its practitioners, that actually produced a sufficient surplus to feed the priests, politicians, scholars, artists and so on whose activities are collectively thought of as “civilisation”.

Given all the extra effort involved, why people first bothered to plant crops, and more particularly why they then went on to plant them near rivers running through deserts—with all the attendant canal-digging that required—is a puzzling question. But some light was shed on it at a recent meeting of the American Geophysical Union, in San Francisco. It may all, it seems, be down to climate change.

My Webpage

POSSIBLE CAUSES OF THE LITTLE ICE AGE

    While it is relatively easy to find evidence for a general cooling trend, it is more difficult to define the cause(s) for this phenomena. More likely, it is the result of several factors. Before we examine these, a brief discussion of the energy structure of Earth is necessary.
    The sun, obviously, is the source of energy for this planet. Fluctuations in the amount of energy absorbed by the Earth will cause variations in the total amount of heat retained or lost. Particulate matter in the atmosphere which blocks some of the incoming energy has been observed to promote a cooling trend for short periods of time. This particulate matter until the present century was largely a result of volcanic activity. Recent industrial pollution is proposed as a cause of the recent cooling trend that began in the 1950s. The explosions of volcanoes in the 19th century have been correlated with a subsequent coolness in the weather in the following years. The explosion of Tambora in 1815 which catapulted 150 cubic kilometers of rock dust is given credit for "the year without summer" in 1816. The explosion of Krakatoa in 1883 presumably lowered the mean earth temperature about 1ºC for several years (Rampino and Self 1982). The presence of this particulate matter may increase the amount of precipitation, because the ejected material acts as condensation nuclei around which water droplets can form. Without these nuclei the air becomes supersaturated.

My Webpage

Looks to me like we are actually COOLER than the long run average

Popular discussions of environmental problems tend to give the impression, for example, that pollution is a completely man-made and modern phenomenon, a creature of the industrial age. This is hardly the case. A single volcano can release as much dust into the atmosphere as several years’ industrial activity.[1] An average hurricane releases the energy of 100,000 hydrogen bombs. The ten million tons of man-made pollutants released in the atmosphere must be measured against the 1,600 million tons of methane gas emitted each year by natural swamps. Forests and other forms of vegetation discharge 170 million tons of various hydrocarbons into the atmosphere each year. These latter figures, cited by historian Paul Johnson in his book The Enemies of Society[2] do not mean that we should have no concern for the problems of industrial pollution. They do, however, provide a much needed check against magnifying such problems out of all due proportion.

Exaggerated Charges

Examples of exaggerated claims of environmental hazards are not difficult to find. Rachel Carson in her famous book Silent Spring alarmed the public with warnings about the allegedly devastating effects of chemical pesticides such as DDT. According to a special committee appointed by the National Academy of Sciences, such claims by Carson and other environmentalists were exaggerated. The special committee, appointed to advise the Environ mental Protection Agency, concluded that “the chronic toxicity studies on DDT have provided no indication that the insecticide is unsafe for humans when used in accordance with commonly recognized practice.”[3]

The agricultural scientist Norman E. Borlaug, winner of the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize for his work on new strains of wheat which made the “green revolution” possible, gave the following testimony before a congressional committee in 1971: “It is a tragic error to believe that agri cultural chemicals are a prime factor in the deterioration of the environment. The indiscriminate cancellation, suspension, or outright banning of such pesticides as DDT is a game of dominoes we will live to regret.”[4] Similar sentiments are voiced by agriculture consultant William Boyd, who observed that “DDT has saved more lives, prevented more illness and protected more food, in the parts of the world where it is most needed, than any other chemical synthesized by man.”[5] While any chemical substance can be misused, the possible dangers of a pesticide such as DDT must be measured against the very real and quite vast benefits it has produced in the alleviation of human hunger and the saving of human lives. Environmental alarmism would endanger more lives than it seeks to protect.

After a bad oil spill in the Santa Barbara Channel, Life magazine reported that the channel was “a sea gone dead.” Yet more careful studies by Dr. Dale Strangham found that such claims were exaggerated. There was no increase in mortality among whales or seals, and no ill effects on animal or vegetable plankton were detected. “Of 12,000 birds in the channel at the time of the spill, 3,500 to 4,000 died from all causes,” according to Strangham. “Yet by May,” he noted, “the bird population had risen to 85,000 because of seasonal migrations.”[6]

My Webpage

An Unbalanced Picture

The reporting of environmental issues has focused on the “crises,” and has tended to ignore areas of genuine improvement. The result has been to leave an unbalanced picture of environmental realities in the public’s mind.

In a detailed article in Science, Prof. J. L. Simon of the University of Illinois called attention to the fact that the total acreage in the United States devoted to wildlife areas and state and national parks increased from 8 million acres in 1920 to 73 million acres in 1974. And despite fears among some environmentalists that the country’s open land is rapidly being turned into parking lots and shopping centers, it is still the case that all the land used for urban areas plus roadways amounts to less than three percent of the area of the United States. Lake Erie, pronounced environmentally dead some time ago by Barry Commoner, has improved significantly, and the fish catch is actually increasing.[8]

Substantial gains have been made in the area of air quality. According to a report in the Los Angeles Times, many large industries, such as oil refineries and chemical plants, have already succeeded in controlling 90 to 95 per cent of their airborne emissions.[9]

The conventional wisdom assumes that greater energy use has led to a deterioration of the human environment. While there undeniably has been some environmental damage, such an analysis is far too simplistic and overlooks the positive gains. James A. Weber has pointed to the fact that greater energy use, by reducing the amount of dangerous and arduous work done by hu mans, has greatly reduced the occasions for fatal or disabling accidents. He notes that the National Safety Council has reported that “between 1912 and 1977 accidental deaths per 100,000 population were reduced 41

per cent from 82 to 48.”[10] These figures are all the more significant when one considers the dramatic increase in the use of automobiles during this period.
My Webpage

Prior to the May 18, 1980, eruption of Mt. St. Helens it was a beautiful symmetrical cone-shaped volcano covered by old-growth trees 150-200 feet tall. In an explosion the equivalent of 20 million tons of TNT or 1500 atomic bombs, Mt. St. Helens and the surrounding area was changed forever. (See Micah 1:3-4)

One eighth cubic mile of what used to be the top of Mt. St. Helens was blown into Spirit Lake in a matter of moments, raising it 200 feet higher than it had been only moments earlier.

Mt. St. Helens continued to spew for 15 hours with the force of 400 million tons of TNT or 30,000 atomic bombs. That is the equivalent of one atom bomb exploding every second for 15 hours straight. It took three days for the jet stream to carry ash to the east coast. It had to be shoveled like snow. Street lights turned on automatically in the daytime because the ash blocked the light of the sun all across the eastern seaboard.

Geologists used to believe layers of volcanic rock were set apart by time. They shouldn't any longer after the Mt. St. Helens eruption. Mt. St. Helens proved to the world forever that sediment is laid down in multiple layers in a matter of hours. In one place 25 feet of sediment was laid down in a single pass of an ash flow forming multiple layers.

My Webpage

More Fun Reading


The Great Global Warming Hoax
My Webpage

INCREASED CO2 LEVELS ARE MIXED BLESSING FOR AGRICULTURE
COLUMBUS, Ohio – A new study suggests that rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could be a boon for agricultural crops, as this greenhouse gas helps crop plants grow and reproduce more.

But that boon comes with a price, said Peter Curtis, a professor of evolution, ecology and organismal biology at Ohio State University. Greater growth and reproduction may hurt the nutritional value of crops.

“If you’re looking for a positive spin on rising CO2 levels, it’s that agricultural production in some areas is bound to increase,” Curtis said. “Crops have higher yields when more CO2 is available, even if growing conditions aren’t perfect.

CO2 is plant food, LOL!!!

 

Most of the time we are in an ice age, we should be thankful for the warmth. Note, we are cooler than the prior interglacial period.

We are near the historic high for CO2 levels, which is what you would expect for an interglacial period. Increase solar activity, increased biological activity, increased CO2. This is where they have is backwards. They claim Global Warming is a function of atmospheric CO2, ie GW=f(Atmospheric CO2) or CO2 causes Global Warming. I argue that it is backwards, elevated CO2 is a by product of Global Warming. Increased temperatures increases biological activity. Global Warming CAUSES elevated CO2, not vise versa. The Environmentalists confuse the dependent and independent variable. First the atomosphere warms, then things grow, then CO2 increases. CO2 is the DEPENDENT, not the INDEPENDENT variable in the model. That is why atmospheric CO2 drops during the glacial periods, decreased biological activity.

My Webpage

Amplitude of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each spring, when the Northern Hemisphere's vegetation awakens from the dormancy of winter and begins to grow again, it removes enough carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to reduce the air's CO2 content by several parts per million.  Then, in the fall, when much of this vegetation dies and decays, it releases huge quantities of carbon dioxide back to the atmosphere, raising the air's CO2 content by a small amount.  Together, these two phenomena produce a seasonal oscillation that is superimposed upon the yearly incremental rise in the air's mean CO2 concentration; and the greater the yearly growth of the planet's vegetation, the greater are the yearly down- and up-swings in the amount of carbon dioxide in the air.  Consequently, the amplitude of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 oscillation serves as a good relative measure of the planet's total vegetative productivity in any given year.