Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

2000 Presidential election RWN talking point on climate--exposed!

Expand Messages
  • Mike Doran
    Why does levels of CO2 in the air lag behind warming--is human activity of burning fossil fuels causal of climate change? What the skeptics say to the CO2 as
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 9, 2003
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Why does levels of CO2 in the air lag behind warming--is human
      activity of burning fossil fuels causal of climate change?

      What the skeptics say to the CO2 as a GHG warmers:

      http://www.co2science.org/journal/2001/v4n14c1.htm

      What was learned
      Variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration were found to lag behind
      variations in air temperature by 1.3 to 5 ka (thousand years). Phase
      relations between CO2 and global ice volume were not as clear cut.
      When CO2 values were compared with global ice volume data derived
      from a delta 18O record of a marine sediment core, it was shown that
      between 420 and 196 ka years ago, variations in CO2 lagged behind
      changes in global ice volume by 1.4 ± 3.7 ka, whereas from 150 ka to
      the present they lead by 6.2 ± 2.7 ka. A more uniform phase
      relationship was obtained when comparing the Vostok CO2 record with a
      Vostok delta 18O record. Although considerable scatter existed in
      the data, atmospheric CO2 concentration consistently led global ice
      volume by an average of 3.9 ± 0.5 ka.

      http://www.co2science.org/journal/1999/v2n8c3.htm

      What was learned
      In all three of the most recent glacial terminations, the earth
      warmed well before there was any increase in the air's CO2 content.
      In the words of the authors, "the time lag of the rise in CO2
      concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of
      400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial
      transitions." During the penultimate (next to last) warm period,
      there is also a 15,000-year time interval where distinct cooling does
      not elicit any change in atmospheric CO2; and when the air's CO2
      content gradually drops over the next 20,000 years, air temperatures
      either rise or remain fairly constant.


      http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm

      The calculations show that the atmosphere connected to a warm ocean
      contains more carbon dioxide than if connected to a cold ocean. This
      fundamental mechanism drives the absorption close to the poles and
      the desorption in the tropics. The concentrations of both Ca2+ and
      Mg2+ will decrease somewhat when the temperature increases. The
      concentrations of both CO32- and HCO3- decrease to a great extent if
      the temperature increases. Because this calculation is performed with
      global mean values, the calculation of absolute concentrations is
      rough because these concentrations are different in different regions
      and for different times of the year.

      The sensitivity calculation, however, may be very reliable. It shows
      that natural temperature increase cannot be the whole reason for the
      increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of about 80 ppm
      during this century. But the question of the `Chicken and the Egg'
      for the ice core measurements seems quite clear: First comes the
      warming, then comes the CO2.

      http://www.john-daly.com/press/press-99.htm

      Chickens and Eggs (31 Mar 99)

      During the last ice age, airborne CO2 was very low (180 ppm), but
      rose sharply to 280 ppm at the end of the ice age.. Over the last
      160,000 years, changes in CO2 have been closely matched by similar
      changes in global temperature.

      The greenhouse industry consistently implied, and at times even
      stated, that during the last 160,000 years, changes in the level of
      CO2 caused global temperature to change in response. This graph, (the
      one displayed by Al Gore during his climate change briefings) clearly
      shows that quite the opposite is true - that temperature changes
      first - followed by the CO2, not the other way around. This is
      evident from the time lags between peaks and troughs in the graphs.

      The myth of CO2-causing-temperature was perpetuated for only one
      reason. It suggested to the public and governments alike, that trace
      amounts of CO2 really was capable of wreaking havoc to the climate,
      enough to cause an ice age (if not enough CO2), or global warming (if
      too much CO2).

      Now the myth has been exposed, not by investigative journalism, but
      in `Science' (12th March). Scripps researchers have re-examined the
      same ice core data and have concluded that temperature is definitely
      the cause, and CO2 is the effect. They show that CO2 lags temperature
      by several centuries. This only confirms what has been common
      knowledge within scienctific circles for several years.

      This public finding kicks away a vital prop from under the CO2
      warming theory, as it demonstrates that CO2 was never the cause of
      the massive temperature variations of the past 160,000 years,
      variations which have been known for decades to be caused by the
      Earth's orbital geometry relative to the sun, and not to greenhouse
      gases. Only the greenhouse industry, for its own opportunistic
      purposes, portrayed CO2 (or lack of) as the primary cause of past
      climate change. The orbital mechanism of climate change, established
      scientifically as early as 1937, has never been refuted. Rather, the
      greenhouse industry and their allies made it politically incorrect to
      even mention it.

      The real truth is now out in the open, and endorsed by science. The
      Earth's orbit causes the ice ages and intervening warm periods. The
      resulting changes in global temperature in turn causes the level of
      atmospheric CO2 to change. There is yet no physical evidence to
      demonstrates that CO2 has any significant effect on climate, other
      than to provide enhanced chemical fertilization to plants, hardly
      something to lose sleep over. Great image of this:

      http://www.john-daly.com/co2-temp.jpg

      Perhaps the most interesting twist was this talking point in 1999 in
      front of the 2000 Presidential election, which was decided by the
      Supreme Court despite the fact that the majority of the American
      people in their wisdom made the right choice. In any event, this
      talking point will now be seen as the lie it is.

      You see, it IS true that CO2 as a green house gas is NOT a
      significant forcing. Problem--it IS extremely significant
      electrically and chemically--impacting conductivity of the oceans,
      and hence causes a changing cloud dynamic, and as must anyone with
      any kind of education and knowledge understands--the action is in the
      clouds. The fact that this conductivity issue is temperature
      dependant also speaks well to what I have been talking about as far
      as signal and noise when considering how large scale low frequancy
      EMFs move from solar wind, to the magnetic poles, and then toward the
      tropics.

      CO2 in varying concentrations of itself, and with other ions, will,
      when waters are stirred by winds, move back and forth chemically.
      This movement frees electrons, and increases the conductivity of the
      oceans. Want to test this idea? This, again, is the beer test. Or
      the soda test if you are not a beer drinker. Take your beer or soda
      and insert electrodes from your voltmeter. If you don't have a
      voltmeter, you can get one for $15. Then stir your drink. Notice
      how the meter jumps around? And if you really want a jumping meter,
      warm your drink. That is what happens in the oceans, and if you
      increase the CO2 in the oceans, what runs down the hydrology, you
      will get more of that, and more cirrus enhancement fed back on a
      locality. Eventually, that increase in CO2 makes it to the air--and
      the forcing remains quite directly correlative despite what the false
      skeptics selling you planet oil/coal are saying.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.