A new theory of climate change

Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:04 am

Quote:

- Al Gore's graph of CO2 level and temperature over the last, however many thousand years it was, omits the vital fact that the temperature change in each case precedes the CO2 level increase by 800 years. In other words the temperature increase causes the oceans and land etc to give off CO2 increasing the level after the warming takes place.

The following article on the subject discusses evidence which strongly suggests the rising CO2 is not in fact from an oceanic release. But then, it's quite apparent humans are releasing this gas into the atmosphere in large amounts from sources (stored CO2 in fossil fuels) which would otherwise remain inert and un-released.

Quote:

It becomes important to determine the source of the increase in CO2 from 280 to 380 parts per million by volume between 1800 and 2005.

Isotopes of carbon may hold a key to determining the source of the increased carbon in the atmosphere (4,5,7) . The studies are based on the ratio of the three different carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2. Carbon has three possible isotopes: C-12, C-13 and C-14. C-12, which has 6 neutrons, is by far the most prevalent carbon isotope and is a stable isotope. Carbon 13 is also a stable isotope, but plants prefer Carbon 12 and therefore photosynthetic CO2 (fossil fuel or wood fuels) is much lower in C-13 than CO2 that comes from other sources (e.g.: animal respiration) Carbon-14 is radioactive. Studies of carbon isotopes in CO2 has resulted in the following findings (5,7,8 ).

There has been a decline in the 14C/12C ratio in CO2 that parallels the increase in CO2. In 1950 a scientist named Suess discovered that fossils do not contain 14C because they are much older than 10 half lives of 14C.
There has been a parallel decline in 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. This has been linked to the fact that fossil fuels, forests and soil carbon come from photosynthetic carbon which is low in 13C. If the increased CO2 was due to warming of the oceans, there should not be a reduction in the ratios of C-13 and C-14 to C-12.
There are other clues that suggest the source of increased CO2 is not related to the warming of the ocean and subsequent release of CO2 from the ocean.

There has been a decline in the oxygen concentration of the atmosphere. If ocean warming was responsible for the CO2 increase, we should also observe an increase in atmospheric O2, because O2 is also released as the water is warmed.
The ocean is a sink for atmospheric carbon, and the carbon content of the oceans has increased by 118±19 PgC in the last 200 years. If the atmospheric CO2 was the result of oceans releasing CO2 to the atmosphere, the CO2 in the ocean should not be rising as a result of ocean warming.

It also claims the correct increase of atmospheric C02 concentration at about 25 percent over the last 200 years. Not as dramatic an increase as I’ve seen report from other sources.

Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:14 am

Regardless of whether or not the CO2 from fossil fuel combustion will have a deleterious long-term affect on our environment, moving away from fossil fuels should still be seen as beneficial move for our civilization, a move I wholeheartedly support. For one, the fuel is finite and will only become scarcer with time, and two, respiration of the burnt fuel has been shown to be unhealthy for biological life forms, most notably humans. I’ve a strong feeling that just how unhealthy the respiration of burnt fossil fuel is has been intentionally repressed, for many reasons.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Oct 24, 2005 Posts: 666

MockingGods wrote:

Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:

Lots of people believe man can change the environment.

Just the other day I saw a documentary about some people chanting while dancing around a fire in an attempt to bring rain.

Even dancing around a fire changes the environment, even if only on a small level. Humans have dramatically altered the environment on many levels, many of which have nothing to do with CO2 emissions. Think of the dramatic environmental changed caused by the construction of a large city. I’m not arguing this is necessarily a “bad” thing, only that it alters the environment. The larger our population becomes the larger our environmental impact becomes.

WOOOOOOSH!

Graduate Thinker Joined: Oct 24, 2005 Posts: 666

Dirkmonger wrote:

sjc wrote:

The jury is in. Global Warming is real and Man is a major contributor in it as well.

In light of new evidence there may need to be a re-trial.

He can't hear you. Everyone who disagrees with him is put on ignore.

But yes, the case is losing on appeal, something about evidence hidden from the jury.

Newbie Joined: Oct 31, 2006 Posts: 21

We really do need to hear some compelling evidence that shoots down the solar cycle hypothesis if there's something wrong with it.

So far there seems to be a deafening silence from the scientific community?

Intern Joined: Feb 02, 2006 Posts: 205

In the history of Earth, enormous climate changes have occurred in the past. I know why now thanks to Mokinggods. see quote below.

Quote:

Even dancing around a fire changes the environment, even if only on a small level.

Well It takes one to know one! Even the religious zealots are calling the global warming advocates ZEALOTS, for their extreme scenarios to frighten us.

And it's really not a stretch to see how similar they are to one another.

The global warming advocates rule by Fear. It's kinda like Bush/Cheney. They want to keep the populace fearful of a coming end of the world doomsday scenario unless we submit to their ways, so they can rule the world.

Furthermore today environmentalist wakos believe overwhelmingly that man is the cause of global warming even though world history is full of extreme climate changes. Call their lack of understanding global change 'the god of the gaps of global warming'. In otherwords they don't understand it so they blame man. Wow man has'nt been this important since Galileo proved that the earth was not the center of the universe and therefore man was not at the center either.

The U.N's summary report on global environment for policy makers is not even a scientific document. Scieintist do not summarize in a report for politicians, other scientists theories and experiements. No! they verify, reverify, attempt to duplicate, and then after years of independent scientific experiments the conclusions are accepted as scientific. The science has just begun. Open your mind and Look hard for the evidence and it's obvious there is alot of science about global warming that we don't understand.

The world has been cooling and heating for millions of years. We don't even understand how that happened. Accepting the God of the Gaps of Global warming, that it must be man, is not science it is dogma.

And Mockinggod you display a bit of pascal's wager in your philosophy on Global warming saying that even if man is not the cause of global warming it is still beneficial to move away from fossil fuels.

Quote:

Regardless of whether or not the CO2 from fossil fuel combustion will have a deleterious long-term affect on our environment, moving away from fossil fuels should still be seen as beneficial move for our civilization, a move I wholeheartedly support.

Ok your point seems logical, but a great many more people benefit from the use of fossil fuels today, and to drastically move to alternate fuels for which they are not cost effective yet would diminish the quality of life and the economies of people through out the world. In other words we can't make this wager if people are going to suffer, and even if you say it needs to be done to stave off global warming, well that's the whole point of this thread, Like a heaven or a hell, neither is man made global warming proved.

Newbie Joined: Oct 31, 2006 Posts: 21

madoba wrote:

Wow man has'nt been this important since Galileo proved that the earth was not the center of the universe and therefore man was not at the center either.

I think you mean Copernicus.

madoba wrote:

Quote:

Regardless of whether or not the CO2 from fossil fuel combustion will have a deleterious long-term affect on our environment, moving away from fossil fuels should still be seen as beneficial move for our civilization, a move I wholeheartedly support.

Ok your point seems logical....

No, it's not. It may be desirable but don't let him introduce another whole argument spuriously like this.

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:42 am

Dirkmonger wrote:

We really do need to hear some compelling evidence that shoots down the solar cycle hypothesis if there's something wrong with it.

So far there seems to be a deafening silence from the scientific community?

Would you not agree that even if there is something to this hypothesis, an atmosphere richer in CO2 would only server to compound the heating affect? I’ve yet to read anything concerning atmospheric warming where CO2 is a benign component.

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:43 am

Dirkmonger wrote:

madoba wrote:

Wow man has'nt been this important since Galileo proved that the earth was not the center of the universe and therefore man was not at the center either.

I think you mean Copernicus.

madoba wrote:

Quote:

Regardless of whether or not the CO2 from fossil fuel combustion will have a deleterious long-term affect on our environment, moving away from fossil fuels should still be seen as beneficial move for our civilization, a move I wholeheartedly support.

Ok your point seems logical....

No, it's not. It may be desirable but don't let him introduce another whole argument spuriously like this.

It's not logical we move away from carbon based fuels? If not, why?

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:58 am

madoba wrote:

Ok your point seems logical, but a great many more people benefit from the use of fossil fuels today, and to drastically move to alternate fuels for which they are not cost effective yet would diminish the quality of life and the economies of people through out the world. In other words we can't make this wager if people are going to suffer, and even if you say it needs to be done to stave off global warming, well that's the whole point of this thread, Like a heaven or a hell, neither is man made global warming proved.

I agree with you here. In fact, I would go as far as saying the use of cheap fossil fuels can be directly related to our current population and industrial growth. Without this fuel source, we'd probably be years behind our current level of civilization. I also agree that an instantaneous withdrawal of this fuel source would mean dramatic suffering for a great many of the humans on this planet. Still, I will not glamorize or get sentimental over the use of this resource when it’s obviously not a biologically friendly compound. We will be better off when there’s a reasonable fuel source to replace it and I will continue to support the science and human ingenuity that will go into its discovery.

I’ve a suspicion however, that economic concerns will slow the progress toward the replacement of fossil fuels and there will be much suffering (mostly because of scarcity) before it’s replaced.

Newbie Joined: Oct 31, 2006 Posts: 21

MockingGods wrote:

Dirkmonger wrote:

madoba wrote:

Wow man has'nt been this important since Galileo proved that the earth was not the center of the universe and therefore man was not at the center either.

I think you mean Copernicus.

madoba wrote:

Quote:

Regardless of whether or not the CO2 from fossil fuel combustion will have a deleterious long-term affect on our environment, moving away from fossil fuels should still be seen as beneficial move for our civilization, a move I wholeheartedly support.

Ok your point seems logical....

No, it's not. It may be desirable but don't let him introduce another whole argument spuriously like this.

It's not logical we move away from carbon based fuels? If not, why?

Oh the point we were discussing was whether or not CO2 is the cause behind global warming. If you go back to the original conversation you'll see that moving to the "we should get away from them anyway" was sort of an illogical way to move the discussion. We still want to know if CO2 is the culprit.

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:16 am

MockingGods wrote:

I’ve a suspicion however, that economic concerns will slow the progress toward the replacement of fossil fuels and there will be much suffering (mostly because of scarcity) before it’s replaced.

You know, fossil fuels aren't just going to "run out" one day. As supply dwindles, prices will climb, and alternatives will become more viable.

Newbie Joined: Oct 31, 2006 Posts: 21

MockingGods wrote:

Dirkmonger wrote:

We really do need to hear some compelling evidence that shoots down the solar cycle hypothesis if there's something wrong with it.

So far there seems to be a deafening silence from the scientific community?

Would you not agree that even if there is something to this hypothesis, an atmosphere richer in CO2 would only server to compound the heating affect? I’ve yet to read anything concerning atmospheric warming where CO2 is a benign component.

That's the weird thing. The guys who have written Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 years are claiming that CO2 doesn't have anywhere near the effects claimed for it. They say as you add CO2 subsequent amounts have less and less effect. Plus they say Al Gore's graph of temperature and CO2 level omits the fact that the CO2 level increases lag the temperature increase by 800 years.

Maybe these guys are completely crazy but they actually sound well informed. Would you even make claims like this if you couldn't back them up?

Or...conspiracy theory follows....they might be part of that enormous budget Mobil has allegedly put aside to fight the idea that global warming is due to CO2.

Confident Learner Joined: Nov 18, 2006 Posts: 67

kmisho wrote:

To me, the crime in all this is concluding that since we don't know for sure then we should do nothing at all.

I think any sane person would agree we should take steps to minimize our impact on the atmosphere, especially when our influence CAN be devastating. The only question is how fast to implement changes.

Arguing against the POSSIBILITY that humans could all by themslves destroy the atmosphere is like arguing that we can't kill off humanity with hydrogen bombs because it never happened before.

It should be a foregone conclusion that the way we use our technology is fully capable of having the kind of disastrous impact that people fear is already happening. It should also be obvious that if our philosophy is do-nothing, this will become a problem if it isn't already.

Only the strong survive yes?

Graduate Thinker Joined: May 18, 2006 Posts: 777

Dirkmonger wrote:

We really do need to hear some compelling evidence that shoots down the solar cycle hypothesis if there's something wrong with it.

So far there seems to be a deafening silence from the scientific community?

Suddenly the shelling stopped and the rifle men laid down their arms, the trenches fell silent, the deafening silence instilled an odd sense of impeding dread of the unknown, from out in the decimated plains time ticked by as if nothing where to happen until *------------------* < WW1 referance (May have been WW2 but pretty sure WW1) -

Moral: There is all ways silence be for the blast -devil smiley-


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore