Oil and NASA's mission statement change

More
17 years 9 months ago #9066 by Gregg
Having listened to the debate and studied the issue of carbon dioxide presumably causing global warming, I see very little that would substantiate this idea. H2O is also a "greenhouse gas" and there is great deal more of it in the atmosphere than CO2. In addition, the Sun changes its thermal output, as has been demonstrated over many centuries.

I think this subject is political. So I will put forth my own politicial idea on this subject. Animals can draw upon 21% of the atmosphere as their food/fuel to support their metabolism and growth. Plants can draw on only 360 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere to support their growth. In fact, vegetation is starved for CO2. I therefore label people, who want to remove CO2, as animal elitists who are waging a war of extermination on plantlife. To their own peril.

Gregg Wilson

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 years 9 months ago #9068 by emanuel
Replied by emanuel on topic Reply from Emanuel Sferios
Gregg,

Global warming and CO2 levels are correlated beyond doubt. Here is a chart of CO2 levels and earth's temperature, as recorded in ice cores, tree rings, and ocean sediment over the last 650,000 years. The earth's temperature fluctuations correlate with CO2 levels.

NOTE - link to CO2 diagram deleted for security reasons by LB
(see if you can find an alternate image link that doesn't try to install a cookie)


And here is what the Union of Concerned Scientists of America says about the graph:

from: www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/hockeystickFAQ.html

What is the "hockey stick" graph?

This graph, created by a group of climate researchers in the late 1990s, reflects average Northern Hemisphere temperature changes over the past several centuries. It was the first comprehensive study combining data from many different archives of temperature including tree rings, ice cores, and coral reefs. It demonstrated that Northern Hemisphere temperatures rose sharply during the late 20th century, in marked contrast to the relatively small temperature fluctuations during the previous six centuries. The graph got its name because its shape resembles a hockey stick, with the blade end representing the sharp temperature rise over recent years.

Is there legitimate scientific debate about the accuracy of the hockey stick graph?

Yes, but mainly about the details, not the essential point. Temperature fluctuations that predate written records are preserved in natural archives (e.g., tree rings, ice cores, boreholes) with various time periods (e.g., seasonal, annual, decadal). The scientific discussion has focused on the best statistical method for combining these various records to accurately capture temperature fluctuations for the Northern Hemisphere. As is typical of the scientific process, independent teams of researchers have worked to reproduce the results of the "hockey stick" by using their own approaches and even by using slightly different data. These studies sometimes produce slightly higher temperature fluctuations in the past compared with the initial study. But despite their differences, they still yield the same essential conclusion: the past 10- to 20-year period was likely the warmest of the past millennium.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 years 9 months ago #16051 by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
Before you guys get too deep in here it might be good to consider the Earth was in the distant past(~1BYA) in a very deep iceage and the atmosphere had much more CO2 at that time. The graphs that are offered as proof CO2 causes global warming don't tell the whole story about warming or cooling. Much like the acorn that fell upon Hennypenny these graphs are being used to prove people will believe if a good sell can be established. I wonder if the tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere really has any effect at all?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 years 9 months ago #16052 by Gregg
Replied by Gregg on topic Reply from Gregg Wilson
The presumed correlation between climatic temperature and CO2 level does not prove or even demonstrate that our level of CO2 causes global warming. Perhaps global warming results in the increased emission of CO2! That would be far more logical. How come Grennland supported farms from about 900 AD to 1200 AD? Were the vikings burning fantastically huge forests? Mass death of humanity occurred when we went into an "Ice Age" in about 1350 AD.

Gregg Wilson

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 years 9 months ago #9072 by Larry Burford
Interesting, but ...

Astronomy ...
Cosmology ...
Planetary science ... Hmmm. Its a stretch, but if you can avoid the "it is / it is not mankind's fault" political stuff then I'll let things develop a bit more. Otherwise, there are better places to go for such a discussion.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 years 9 months ago #9074 by Gregg
Replied by Gregg on topic Reply from Gregg Wilson
Okay. Back to astronomy and science:

"The evidence is in and the news is alarming. Empirical scientific data shows that the globe is in fact warming and causing the polar ice caps to melt. This news should send shudders down the backs of those who have doubted the increasing temperature. Only one problem. The global warming is occurring on Mars."

"The way these polar pits are retreating is absolutely astounding," Mustard said. "Why is Mars warmer today than it was in the past, we really have no way of knowing why," Malin said.

Hmmmm........

Gregg Wilson

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.275 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum