Forge of Creation

I feel that the assertion that we as humans have “broken” the planet and therefore must do something to fix it is erroneous, no matter what the popular culture and the popular media want us to believe. Much better to call it “Climate Change” than “Global Warming” That way it doesn’t raise so much touchiness. I do not care whether it is a conservative or liberal view. It is better to spend our effort learning to adapt because it’s more likely that we’ll make it worse trying to fix it. If the “Warming” bunch want to quit putting smoke in the air, I’m all for that. But I for one say we NEED the C02 to stave off the next ice age. The other false assertion in my mind is that somehow this situation will make the planet unliveable and that we are all going to die if we don’t find a way to fix it. Yes, some of us will die if we do not adapt quickly enough or sufficiently It’s mostly just a matter of moving to less hostile part of the planet in the next 100 years.

Earth is pretty important to everyone, yet we consume and waste everything from the sea life to the oil reserves to get individual gain. We have habitats being destroyed all over the world. I understand that and agree we should all do everything we can to minimize/stop it from happening. Look up the “plastic sargasso” on Google for the biggest example. This is pitiful, come on guys, can’t we just find a use for all that plastic? Mine it and recycle it or something…

However, this is a different issue altogether. That we have been altering our atmosphere since the early industrial age (some say the stone age) and that the rise in C02 will catastrophically thrust us into a runaway global warming…well, I argue that between the levels C02 produced by the oceans, decaying vegetation on land, and volcanoes erupting over the last 50k years, humans cannot have been much of a contributor, let alone the cause. The climatic record bears this out. Every rise in C02 in the past has been the result of, rather than the cause of, the warming of the planet. It almost always slips into an ice age after that point.

The only connection this subject has to this site is that it may actually be a conspiracy by whoever has an interest in lots of people buying their green products, while the govt./or a shadow govt. makes laws to restrict our freedoms and privacies, modify our preferences away from fossil fuels, and force us to use less energy. They are working in a collusion of some sort. I become more convinced that its mostly window dressing to hide an agenda as the recent Climate-Gate Controversy and the similar one with NASA show. We even have Hollywood threatening to take Al Gore’s Oscar back.

Here is an article about the growth rate of Aspens are up by 50% because of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

http://www.physorg.com/news179118204.html

I want to use data to back up my opinions, however few of the charted graphs offer either a calibrated scale of time vs Co2 or go back far enough to correlate to the last time the Earth was in a similar state, such as the last ice age. Take the Reconstructed Temperature graph below. Only goes to 0BC. Is this what we are using to prove global warming? What does “reconstructed temperature mean?

2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison

OK, this one is a bit better. It shows that as early as 10,000 years ago, (end of the last Ice Age) there was more C02 in the air than now. But since this was designed to show how temperature rise begins before CO2 increases, it actually goes a bit toward debunking the opposite. What came first? the temperature rise, or the CO2? Modern Warming advocates claim that the increase in CO2 contributed by our human lifestyle such as manufacturing, mining, and driving will cause a corresponding temperature rise. Well, if you look at the table above to see that the temperature has gone up, you would assume that’s the proof of it.

Not so! It has actually been cooler now that the sunspots have started again.

if temperature rise causes an increase in CO2 as the table below points out, then we must look somewhere else for the temperature rise. Oh, what temperature rise? It turns out that the data used to substantiate the temperature rise “may have been” been scrapped- http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html? –so that the results may be homogenized for public consumption.

700px-Deglaciation

Now here is one that also shows CO2 correlated to ice ages. However, it shows a different concentration of CO2 than the previous one which shows about 210 ppmv, while this one asserts that we have nearly 380 ppmv due to the industrial revolution. Why is this so different? Data from US Dept of Commerce Global Monitoring site shows about 385 ppmv. If the assertion that Co2 leads temperature is correct, this is a concern. However, the data shows that temperature rise has always led Co2 concentration (not the other way around). So the real question is, does this spike in CO2 result in a net effect on global temperature, and if so, can the Earth absorb this Co2 slow enough to stave off the next ice age, yet fast enough to stop a runaway warming. That is the question I cannot get answered without the answer being soaked in the popular view that we are all going to be cooked and flooded by the inevitable ocean rise.

Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev

We are also coming out of a solar minimum which (if you correlate it to the temperatures at the time) may show why things have been warming up. Notice how the Maunder minumum lasts until 1750 or so and the corresponding maximum thereafter corresponds to the Revolutionary war period in which we all know there was a very cold period. Now look at the dips vs the rises in the data and compare them with the current minimum. It should have gotten warmer, right?

700px-Sunspot_Numbers

Methane is CH4 (1carbon & 4hydrogen) while Carbon Dioxide is CO2 (1carbon & 2oxygen). At another level:
Methane is a by product of animal life through anaerobic processes (flatulence and fermentation) and by decaying swamps. There are huge amount in the earth’s crust. In sunlight, in the presence of oxygen, it decays over decades into C02 and water. Methane traps about 20 times the amount of heat as C02. The oceans give off methane too.

Carbon Dioxide is used by plants for photosynthesis which carbon (the plant) and oxygen. In the presence of artificially high C02, plants grow faster and larger and produce Oxygen at a faster rate. When they die, the decay produces methane (which gradually turns to C02) and C02. See this article.

500,000,000 (500 million) years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more more than today, and 4–5 times what it is today during the Jurassic period and then slowly declining with a lot of reduction 49 million years ago. That time coincides with the point in time that the Earth was totally frozen over as a total ice planet. Since then, the Earth has seesawed between warm and cold periods. We are now in a warm period, heading toward a cold one as demonstrated by the high concentration of C02 (again, high concentrations of C02 have typically been the result of the warm periods, not led to them). Now mankind seems to be adding to the C02 and slightly delaying the inevitable and giving us some time, but eventually we will slip into another ice age.

Drought is the result of the weather patterns changing. Plants and trees need water, nitrogen, and C02 to thrive. 3rd world countries using slash and burn techniques on rainforests render the soil infertile (I agree this is bad). If that happens to be in an area where drought occurs (or causes it), thats even worse. Meanwhile, other parts of the world are getting MORE rain, some too much. Take the Mississipi valley. Too much rain and all the runoff is creating a dead zone in the gulf of Mexico. In Southern California, we have drought without the soil going infertile and the scrub is growing at such an incredible rate thanks to the increase in CO2 that we are having fires every 3–5 years when it used to be only every 20 years. Again, I do not disagree with the concept of Climate Change. What I disagree on is the notion that a) humans are the sole reason for it, and b)humans could conceivably fix the overall problem, and c) that we are headed for a net global warming.

Hey, either way is fine with me. We can either grow oranges in Alaska (warming), or rainforests in the southwest (ice age) It will just require some of us to move around the earth to compensate for what the earth does anyway.