Global Warming a fake?

[ck27]

I was reading quite a few articles that human causing global warming is a fake? I wanted to post this after looking through this section and seeing all the global warming were all going to die, how i would solve global warming and other stuff like that.
http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
ARg cant find my original sources but there is one. I really personally hate the ending of that article though.

Earth goes through natural cycles and there has been no direct relations with carbon dioxide emissions from industrial civ and temperature increase.

[UncleAl]

Carbon dioxide is a weak IR absorber, 380 ppm in air. Water is a powerful IR absorber, 30,000 ppm in air. Where are the hysterics about humidity?

We have just come through some of the most active sunspot years on record. (Tough on ass-tronaughts' eyeballs - causes radiation cataracts) The solar constant is larger given lots of sunspots (surrounding areas called faculae glow brighter). Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn are showing minor temp rises. It looks like years of peak sunspot activity may be followed by years of attenuated activity, like in the 1950s and 60s. Go back and look - an impending ice age was Officially upon us.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Originally Posted by UncleAl

Go back and look - an impending ice age was Officially upon us

Not true.

Global warming is real.

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by ck27

Earth goes through natural cycles and there has been no direct relations with carbon dioxide emissions from industrial civ and temperature increase.

If you google around for studies from ice cores you can quickly call this into question. Ice core studies have shown both that carbon dioxide concentration correlates well with temperature and that our current atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is higher then its been in at least the last 400,000 years. (See for instance, the June 1999 issue of Nature)
-Will

[UncleAl]

Global warming is real.

Sunspots are cooler darker areas than the overall background. They are surrounded by faculae that are hotter and brighter. Energy emission varies as the fourth power of absolute temperature. Let's try 10% cooler and 10% warmer and see what we get for equal areas of emission.

(0.9)^4 = 65.6%
(1.1)^4 = 146.4%

That is not a robust analysis but it is adequately qualitative. If it were 65.6% and 134.4% things would balance. In the real world, the more dark sunspots there are the more energy the sun emits overall because of the coupled faculae. We're talking a fraction of 1% difference/average. It's enough to push the entirety of Global Warming.

http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/sunspots.htm
http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/sola..._predict_l.gif
Things have been smoking

The warmest day of summer is not 21 June (August is evil) nor the coldest day of winter 21 December (try February). There is a lag between energy input and temperature distribution. Same for a changing solar constant. If we do nothing, the "hottest years in 500 years" from the 2000-2002 explosion of sunspots will simply vanish. If the sun stays quiet as expected, Global Warming will vanish and the new grief will be an impending ice age.

We know exactly how much coal, gas, and petroleum are burned because we monitor and tax every drip of production. The total fossil fuel CO2 annual input into the atmosphere is lost in the noise of natural emissions measurements. It is a sparrow fart compared to CO2 released by global wildfires each year.

The Carbon Tax on Everything is government revenue enhancement. It will collapse First World economies and not couple to the Global Warming problem short of major national depression like Ford's and Carter's stagflation. You don't drive to work if you don't have a job.

If you want to reduce atmospheric CO2, plant tens of thousands of square miles of new forest. When the wood matures, cut it down and build houses to sequester that carbon in cellulose for another 50 years. Replant the forests.

US Enviro-whiner policy is to discourage wood frame houses. Brazil is destroying the Amazon jungle as fast as it can chop trees and light fires for farms to grow sugar cane for its "ethanol economy." The soil is exhausted in three years and they cut deeper into the Amazon for new land. It must be government - it is exactly the subsidized wrong thing to do in the worst possible way.

[Errin OH]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

If you google around for studies from ice cores you can quickly call this into question. Ice core studies have shown both that carbon dioxide concentration correlates well with temperature and that our current atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is higher then its been in at least the last 400,000 years. (See for instance, the June 1999 issue of Nature)
-Will

The ocean is the single largest absorber of carbon dioxide, where does it go? Why wouldn't ice do the same over an extended period of time? I have yet to see a study that says carbon dioxide levels in ice will "not" change over time, here's proof. If industry drives Global warming, that is going to push use into an ice age, who's to blame for the last one. Oh and the one before that. Did the dinosaurs drive SUVs?

Global Warming, not to be confused with pollution, is a scam. Billions and billions spent on guilt and fear. It is a natural occurrence that happens. Planets get warmer, planets get colder. Get over it. Better yet, show me the study that says GREEN power isn't going to cause problems. I don't need user defined studies to tell me that if you put up a massive solar array, you will be robbing the planet of the "normal" energy it receives, thus changing the effect of said energy. Nor do I need a user defined study to tell me if you install many, many thousands, millions, and billions, of Geo-thermal wells it is not going to change the ground temp. Even wind power robs nature of energy down stream. Explain to me how these are not going to affect us. Minor amounts you' say? Well explain how a 200 year, 2% contribution is going to affect Global temperatures more than 400,000 years of natural occurrence. He11 the trees impact "Global temp" more than we do, maybe we should run out and cut them all down.

BTW I saw this quote and it says it all,

"You may not be able to change the world, but at least you can embarrass the guilty."

That bout sums up the Doom-Sayers case, {I can't prove what I say, but because you disagree it’s your fault and you should be ashamed}.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Originally Posted by Unc

If you want to reduce atmospheric CO2, plant tens of thousands of square miles of new forest. When the wood matures, cut it down and build houses to sequester that carbon in cellulose for another 50 years. Replant the forests.

See, that's a much better idea than killing off all the brown people.

Errin - you've been reading the wrong studies.

realclimate.org

TFS

[HydrogenBond]

The industrial connection to global warming is more emotional than rational. This is being used to manipulate environmental policy. It is also a tactic to ween us off fossil fuels. Below is some forest fire data just for the US.

Daily Statistics 7/10/06
Number of new large fires 4 States currently reporting large fires:
Number of active large fires 19 Alaska (1)
Arizona (1)
Arkansas (1)
California (6)
Florida (1)
Nevada (5)
Texas (1)
Washington (1)
Wyoming (2)
Note: Includes WFU fires


Acres from active fires 160,358
Number of Wildland Fire Use (WFU) fires 3
Number of Wildland Fire Use (WFU) acres 5,310
Fires contained on 7/8/06 3
Year-to-date large fires contained 698
Year-to-date Statistics

2006 (1/1/06 - 7/10/06) Fires: 61,653 Acres: 4,007,311
2005 (1/1/05 - 7/10/05) Fires: 33,834 Acres: 3,034,619
2004 (1/1/04 - 7/10/04) Fires: 40,986 Acres: 3,080,965
2003 (1/1/03 - 7/10/03) Fires: 29,457 Acres: 996,924
2002 (1/1/02 - 7/10/02) Fires: 46,062 Acres: 3,162,249
2001 (1/1/01 - 7/10/01) Fires: 44,124 Acres: 1,244,092
2000 (1/1/00 - 7/10/00) Fires: 51,519 Acres: 2,232,874
10-Year Average
2001 - 2006 Fires: 43,961 Acres: 1,950,865

Some International Data can be found at: http://www.unece.org/trade/timber/ff-stats.html

[TheFaithfulStone]

Here's the thing about carbon from forest fires. The carbon got INTO those trees by coming out of the atmosphere.

Therefore, putting it back INTO the atmosphere is less of a disaster than putting carbon into the atmosphere that's been buried underground for 50 million years.

TFS

[HydrogenBond]

When it come to global warming it is the amount of atmospheric CO2 that is important. Much of the CO2 that has been the atmosphere at different times in history is now part of shell fish and limestone deposits. Acid rain can cause this to be released from the soil into the atmosphere.

I did a rough calculation of how big one year of world oil production is. It is about 3767 million tons last year. One ton is 7.33 barrels and one barrel is 42 gallons. If we dumped this onto 1 millions acres of land it would be about 3.5 feet deep. If we spill it over the acreage burned by forest fires in the US this year, so far, it becomes about 1ft deep. The oil burn is sort of in proportion to all the trees and shrubs burned.