Posted 7 months, 21 days ago in 
Loading ...
This is a reply to the April 3 letter, “Attack on global warming came at an interesting time” by J. Eugene Fox.
As one who has made the study of the earth sciences my life’s work rather than just a mere instant expert, I would like to pose some questions to all who have taken the dive, and are now swimming in the “‘man-caused-global-warming” lake.
• What caused the thousands of sea-level changes that occurred before there were any men?
•
• What caused the thousands of cooling and warming events that occurred before there were any men?
•
• Why are there no computer models that work on those earlier events?
• Why will these non-man-caused events suddenly stop after my government (and, apparently, all other governments) clamp controls (and make huge bucks) on carbon dioxide emissions?
• Why should we give up our excellent way of life (and have to pay huge additional taxes) because a handful of self-proclaimed experts have built an end-of-the-world theory on a house-of-cards foundation?
I never have liked pollution or waste. But, talk about waste! Couldn’t we better use our resources planning what we are going to do to help people displaced by the next natural sea level change or global temperature change?
JACK MAYHEW
Fruita
21 Responses to “Why all the fuss about ‘man-caused global warming’ now?”
Posted April 3rd, 2009 at 4:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Why does the fact that the earth has gone through natural warming and cooling trends in the past mean that man cannot be affecting the climate now?
Posted April 3rd, 2009 at 4:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I have said it time and time and time again, evidence in the geologic past, by isolating radioactive isotope signatures of Co2, has shown there is no correlation between temperature rise and fall due to Co2 level in the atmosphere. I have said this time and time again as well, Co2 is Co2 is Co2 whether coming from natural sources or manmade. Co2 levels have been much higher than now in ancient climates and it did nothing to cause temperature rise or fall. In fact based on the all the data temperature drives Co2 levels not the other way around. So people coming up with the idea of compounding, or saying humans are pumping Co2 into the atmosphere on top of what is already being produced is causing AGW is nonsense. Co2 is Co2 is Co2 and the end product of a chemical process natural or manmade. The other new hoax idea is that burning fossil fuels releases a different kind of Co2 is hogwash as well. The new excuse is that the Co2 molecule from burning fossil fuels is different because of the number of isotopes. Burning fossil fuel actually releases Co2 with less isotopes thus it has less mass. So this theory is bunk as well. The AGW supporters want to cherry pick the last 140 years of recorded temperature to try and prove AGW and totally ignore millions of years of the geologic past and paleoclimate data that prove Co2 does nothing to temperature. The temperature has fluctuated less than .5 of a degree up and down in the last 140 years and Co2 did not cause the fluctuation to occur.
Posted April 3rd, 2009 at 5:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Jacks asks, “Couldn’t we better use our resources planning what we are going to do to help people displaced by the next natural sea level change or global temperature change?”
No. A better use of our resources would be actually helping people displaced by unemployment - right now - who have been hurt by the economic crisis - right now.
Not that planning for the future isn’t important, but we’re all sunk if we can’t pull out of the economic spiral we’re in. The current admin has it’s priorities where the sun doesn’t shine anyway. Not to worry - BO can just part the rising seas. At least that’s what we’re told. Last I heard he’s still campaigning in France though.
Posted April 3rd, 2009 at 8:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“I have said it time and time and time again, evidence in the geologic past, by isolating radioactive isotope signatures of Co2, has shown there is no correlation between temperature rise and fall due to Co2 level in the atmosphere. ”
How exactly does “isolating radioactive isotope signatures of CO2″ show anything about the effect of the CO2 on the climate in the past? Got any sources for this? It sounds like technobabble.
“I have said this time and time again as well, Co2 is Co2 is Co2 whether coming from natural sources or manmade. Co2 levels have been much higher than now in ancient climates and it did nothing to cause temperature rise or fall. In fact based on the all the data temperature drives Co2 levels not the other way around.”
Not so. This is based on the idea that the oceans release CO2 in response to warming. The problem with that idea is that oxygen would be released as well. Since we don’t see a corresponding increase on O2…
“So people coming up with the idea of compounding, or saying humans are pumping Co2 into the atmosphere on top of what is already being produced is causing AGW is nonsense. Co2 is Co2 is Co2 and the end product of a chemical process natural or manmade. The other new hoax idea is that burning fossil fuels releases a different kind of Co2 is hogwash as well. The new excuse is that the Co2 molecule from burning fossil fuels is different because of the number of isotopes. Burning fossil fuel actually releases Co2 with less isotopes thus it has less mass. So this theory is bunk as well.”
Are you sure you’re a geologist? How does less mass affect in any way how CO2 relates to temperature? The point being made, which your “rebuttal” entirely fails to address, is that the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today has a lower C-12/C-14 ratio. That means more of the carbon on the CO2 in the atmosphere is C-12 rather than C-14. Guess what that means? It means the carbon being released as CO2 is old. Old enough to have had the C-14 decay away. In the normal carbon cycle, the vast majority of the CO2 comes from plants and the decay of vegetable matter. The carbon there is more recently atmospheric and thus has nearly the same ratio of atmospheric C-12/C-14.
“The AGW supporters want to cherry pick the last 140 years of recorded temperature to try and prove AGW and totally ignore millions of years of the geologic past and paleoclimate data that prove Co2 does nothing to temperature. The temperature has fluctuated less than .5 of a degree up and down in the last 140 years and Co2 did not cause the fluctuation to occur.”
http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html
Posted April 4th, 2009 at 9:26 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
You guys are missing the most important thing. Dr. Science is back to enlighten the ignorant masses!
http://www.drscience.com/gifs/smugdoc.gif
Posted April 4th, 2009 at 9:47 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Don’t the global warming alarmists also believe that the earth will end on winter solstice 2012? So what is the problem then?
Posted April 4th, 2009 at 12:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I don’t think that he is Dr. Science, I think he is more like Mr. Wizard!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwVA698Hx2g&feature=related
Posted April 4th, 2009 at 12:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Gene is definately Dr. Science. Just listen.
http://www.drscience.com/rafiles/TheTruthAboutLassie.mp3
Posted April 4th, 2009 at 4:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
There is also dihydrogen monoxide we have to worry about. Be careful….
http://www.dhmo.org/
as if, you did not have enough to worry about.
Posted April 4th, 2009 at 4:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Don’t just worry about it, take action!
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/3/ban-dihydrogen-monoxide-now
Posted April 4th, 2009 at 9:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Your concerns about dihydrogen monoxide are all wet.
Posted April 4th, 2009 at 10:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I expect a flood of complaints about this soon.
Posted April 5th, 2009 at 7:47 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I blame democrats and republicans alike for their hydration policies, I hear Ritter drinks copious amounts!
Posted April 5th, 2009 at 3:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I think that what we are ignoring is that Oxigen is the comman denominator of both of these problematic substances. Ban O now!
Posted April 5th, 2009 at 3:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Make that Oxygen.
Posted April 7th, 2009 at 9:23 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yep - it’s just one big liberal conspiracy - all that fuss & mess about climate change. From today’s Anchorage Daily News:
++++++
“Researchers say that as spring begins, more than 90 percent of the sea ice in the Arctic is only 1 or 2 years old. That makes it thinner and more vulnerable than at anytime in the past three decades, according to researchers with NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado.
“We’re not set up well for summertime,” ice data center scientist Walt Meier said Monday. “We’re in a very precarious situation.”
In normal winters, thick sea ice — often about 10 feet thick or more — extends from the northern boundaries of Greenland and Canada almost to Russia. This year, the thick ice cap barely covers the bull’s-eye of the Arctic Circle.
The amount of thick sea ice hit a record wintertime low of just 378,000 square miles this year, down 43 percent from last year, Meier said. The amount of older sea ice that was lost is larger than the state of Texas.”
+++++
Jack asks: “Couldn’t we better use our resources planning what we are going to do to help people displaced by the next natural sea level change or global temperature change?”
Here’s a thought, Jack: how about you bulldoze your property and build a tent camp for that 40% of the world’s population which lives within 100 km of a coastline? Those 2,500,000,000 souls who will soon need a new home due to rising sea levels.
Posted April 7th, 2009 at 9:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
But Uncle Fester, the ice came back faster last winter than ever! Ice is ice, right? Just like carbon is carbon. All those finicky little details like thick sea ice and C-12/14 are just attempts by the liberals to confuse the issue and distract attention from their attempts to destroy liberty and the American way of life.
Man, we REALLY need that rolling-eyes smiley.
Posted April 7th, 2009 at 5:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Uncle Fester and Scott,
Yep, gotta believe NASA for sure when things like this happen -
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/18/nsidc-satellite-sea-ice-sensor-has-catastrophic-failure-data-faulty-for-the-last-45-days/
A faulty sensor in the satellite that measures sea ice for the last 45 days underestimated it by about the size of the state of califiornia.
Posted April 7th, 2009 at 5:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
Yep, those finicky little details underestimating the sea ice to this magnitude. We really do nee that rolling-yes smiley for sure!
Posted April 7th, 2009 at 6:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
There is a difference, and an important one. Global warming deniers don’t seem to understand that.
How about explaining your assertion that the mass of the isotopes has anything to do with the climate effect?
Posted April 7th, 2009 at 6:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
No ned to explain at all because isotopes in Co2 have NOTHING to do with AGW. It’s like beating my head against a wall with people like you. Co2 is Co2 is Co2. Doesn’t matter from what sorce, manmade or decaying bioligical matter or volanos. It’s all the same and it Co2 has nothing to do with global warming.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.