Longest Thread Ever
- Thread starter babe
- Start date
I think it's a damn lie.
You know, the kind that is based on bad data. How many thumbs it takes to get the measurements you want, or how many other research reports you have to ignore. Well, some say statistics are worse than damn lies. Maybe I should just go with that.
According to other reports I've looked at, the equation correlating CO2 levels with ambient air temps suffer from significant omissions of significant factors, and are off by a factor of ten in purely theoretical physical thermodynamic terms, in recent govt.-sponsored reports supporting global warming extremists/alarmists.
The oceanic ambient concentrations of CO2 are determined by temperature. Colder water will hold more CO2, and the process of freezing ocean water will produce a higher figure for CO2. Ice that is formed from water vapor freezing in the atmosphere will reflect atmospheric levels of CO2. . . . and atmospheric factors as well. altitude. . . velocities affecting rates of freezing, whatever there is. Sometimes scientists ignore stuff deemed insignificant. Sometimes later on, other scientists try to do better, and look at other things.
On a much longer time scale than the ice-age--riddled past few million years, CO2 levels were higher. In the 1 billion year range, CO2 levels were "astronomical", and we had polar rain forests and lots of trees all over the earth.
Most of the "alarm" about climate change is projections of stuff that has happened before somewhere in earth history.
Of course if you pick a reference period that is properly constrained not to show that CO2 levels have been, inside a few million years, twice what we have achieved in the twentyfirst century, you can make a line like that and scare people. But you are buying into the lie.
But if anyone is interested in real science, it would perhaps be worthwhile to look at all the studies that have been done, and maybe consider the tools, equipment, methods, and biases of the researchers. . . the reasoning they have followed in producing their study. . . . lots of stuff like that. It's premature to elevate science to the status of absolute fact, and today after we have had corrupt government officials and politicians following a sort of fashion of thought deliberately funding biased science, science has sunk to a modern nadir, I hope, because I'd hate to see science get pushed much further by political hacks.
You know, the kind that is based on bad data. How many thumbs it takes to get the measurements you want, or how many other research reports you have to ignore. Well, some say statistics are worse than damn lies. Maybe I should just go with that.
According to other reports I've looked at, the equation correlating CO2 levels with ambient air temps suffer from significant omissions of significant factors, and are off by a factor of ten in purely theoretical physical thermodynamic terms, in recent govt.-sponsored reports supporting global warming extremists/alarmists.
The oceanic ambient concentrations of CO2 are determined by temperature. Colder water will hold more CO2, and the process of freezing ocean water will produce a higher figure for CO2. Ice that is formed from water vapor freezing in the atmosphere will reflect atmospheric levels of CO2. . . . and atmospheric factors as well. altitude. . . velocities affecting rates of freezing, whatever there is. Sometimes scientists ignore stuff deemed insignificant. Sometimes later on, other scientists try to do better, and look at other things.
On a much longer time scale than the ice-age--riddled past few million years, CO2 levels were higher. In the 1 billion year range, CO2 levels were "astronomical", and we had polar rain forests and lots of trees all over the earth.
Most of the "alarm" about climate change is projections of stuff that has happened before somewhere in earth history.
Of course if you pick a reference period that is properly constrained not to show that CO2 levels have been, inside a few million years, twice what we have achieved in the twentyfirst century, you can make a line like that and scare people. But you are buying into the lie.
But if anyone is interested in real science, it would perhaps be worthwhile to look at all the studies that have been done, and maybe consider the tools, equipment, methods, and biases of the researchers. . . the reasoning they have followed in producing their study. . . . lots of stuff like that. It's premature to elevate science to the status of absolute fact, and today after we have had corrupt government officials and politicians following a sort of fashion of thought deliberately funding biased science, science has sunk to a modern nadir, I hope, because I'd hate to see science get pushed much further by political hacks.
So... this graph is not accurate?
So, what's the source of your graph, or are you just a free-hand sketch artist?
I believe it's the same graph that was shown on the "Inconvenient Truth" documentary presented by Al Gore?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JIuKjaY3r4
Here's a recent report published in PNAS, one of the more highly-esteemed journals:
The last 500 million years of the strontium-isotope record are shown to correlate significantly with the concurrent record of isotopic fractionation between inorganic and organic carbon after the effects of recycled sediment are removed from the strontium signal. The correlation is shown to result from the common dependence of both signals on weathering and magmatic processes. Because the long-term evolution of carbon dioxide levels depends similarly on weathering and magmatism, the relative fluctuations of CO2 levels are inferred from the shared fluctuations of the isotopic records. The resulting CO2 signal exhibits no systematic correspondence with the geologic record of climatic variations at tectonic time scales.
https://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full
According to this study, processes like volcanism, erosion, tectonic movements appear to be primary determinants of "natural" atmospheric CO2 levels during the past 500M years, and there appears to be no systematic effect either causing climate or resulting from climate changes.
The last 500 million years of the strontium-isotope record are shown to correlate significantly with the concurrent record of isotopic fractionation between inorganic and organic carbon after the effects of recycled sediment are removed from the strontium signal. The correlation is shown to result from the common dependence of both signals on weathering and magmatic processes. Because the long-term evolution of carbon dioxide levels depends similarly on weathering and magmatism, the relative fluctuations of CO2 levels are inferred from the shared fluctuations of the isotopic records. The resulting CO2 signal exhibits no systematic correspondence with the geologic record of climatic variations at tectonic time scales.
https://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full
According to this study, processes like volcanism, erosion, tectonic movements appear to be primary determinants of "natural" atmospheric CO2 levels during the past 500M years, and there appears to be no systematic effect either causing climate or resulting from climate changes.
Here's some more recent studies, this from Yale:
https://people.earth.yale.edu/cenozoic-evolution-carbon-dioxide
The CO2 levels were double what we have now.
And yet somehow, earth cooled off after that, and we started having ice ages. Something happened to the CO2, later, but it was not the driver of the climate change. The scientists are speculating on what happened. Oh, so colder water can hold a lot more CO2. Could it really be that simple? Your pop in the fridge, then in the sunlight, see the fizz.
But that is contradicted by the report just above. CO2 levels correlate better with magmatism, erosion, and earthwide plate tectonic phenomena. And, from my own thinking, sequestration processes like depositon of carbonate rock in warm seas.
https://people.earth.yale.edu/cenozoic-evolution-carbon-dioxide
The CO2 levels were double what we have now.
And yet somehow, earth cooled off after that, and we started having ice ages. Something happened to the CO2, later, but it was not the driver of the climate change. The scientists are speculating on what happened. Oh, so colder water can hold a lot more CO2. Could it really be that simple? Your pop in the fridge, then in the sunlight, see the fizz.
But that is contradicted by the report just above. CO2 levels correlate better with magmatism, erosion, and earthwide plate tectonic phenomena. And, from my own thinking, sequestration processes like depositon of carbonate rock in warm seas.
The simplest explanation might be seductve conveniences for the simplest minds.
There is, however,no reason to believe that we can maintain or sustain any optimum in earth climate or atmospheric composition.
The earth is a little gravitational vacuum cleaner sweeping through space, sucking in whatever we encounter, mostly hydrogen gas, charged particles ejected from the sun, bits of dust, some rocks.
Most of our gross earth chemical processes are not simply cyclical. The so-called carbon cycle includes a huge mostly irreversible carbon sink in the form of undersea carbonate rock thousands of feet thick in places.
The oceans have a lot of absorbed gas, and there is some rock sometimes dissolved by acid. The major liberator of carbon dioxide is volcanism, so it makes complete sense that magmatism or volcanism is a real factor, and that our fossil fuels are short term and an order or two less significant.
Very long term the earth is cooling and we will have lower carbon dioxide, and there is nothing we can do about it.
There is, however,no reason to believe that we can maintain or sustain any optimum in earth climate or atmospheric composition.
The earth is a little gravitational vacuum cleaner sweeping through space, sucking in whatever we encounter, mostly hydrogen gas, charged particles ejected from the sun, bits of dust, some rocks.
Most of our gross earth chemical processes are not simply cyclical. The so-called carbon cycle includes a huge mostly irreversible carbon sink in the form of undersea carbonate rock thousands of feet thick in places.
The oceans have a lot of absorbed gas, and there is some rock sometimes dissolved by acid. The major liberator of carbon dioxide is volcanism, so it makes complete sense that magmatism or volcanism is a real factor, and that our fossil fuels are short term and an order or two less significant.
Very long term the earth is cooling and we will have lower carbon dioxide, and there is nothing we can do about it.
Last edited:
Babe I would love your take on the Illuminati and the Freemasons and the New World Order? Do you know anything about those? How much weight do you put on those conspiracy theories?
People have been having dirty little secret societies for meillenia no doubt in every corner of the earth. "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" was a way of life when we were swinging from the trees.
Nothing much "conspiracy theory" about the United Nations or a lot of people wanting to streamline the world for better commerce on advantages terms to those involved in the planning. You can google all that, and it's right out there in black and white. The CFR has a web page, and on request they even sent me a booklet describing all their activities. I don't know if the Freemasons have more clout nowadays than the Rotary or Lions' clubs.
The Illuminati actually have existed in their own minds for hundreds of years, but like all closed little clubs they depend for effectiveness on securing the agreement and cooperation of others in their schemes. I might think they're just insane nutjobs, really.
I think you're a little green in your political maturity, just too susceptible to propaganda of any kind.
I actually believe in broad principles that have proven to be helpful to the general populace historically. Having a limited government with defined human rights was a good thing for democracy and for the American constitutional republic. Democracy fails when government becomes too big and too powerful because it degenerates into fascism or oligarchy because the rich or super-smart can turn it all to their benefit. I like the way free markets work where there is no monopoly established that can reduce production and raise prices with impunity.
I don't know. I wasn't there. Pretty sure it wasn't me.
Kennedy was a drugged-up Pres on meth and pain killers, and the Kremlin had sources within his smallest circle of friends, but he had high ideals politically in favor of the little folk. He was a threat to the bankers and the whole "the way things are" crowd. He might not have gone deeper in the Viet Nam thing, but he showed courage on the nukes, and betrayed the Cubans in the Bay of Pigs. Too high, and too much into Marilyn Monroe, and the like, really. His back hurt him a lot. He was all for a huge program for bringing water to the West from the Arctic, NAWAPA. My kind of progressive in a lot of ways.
For sure there are some big people who wanted him dead. Pretty sure the story we read in the history isn't the real story. LBJ might have known. If he did, he didn't really tell.
How about 9/11? Do you think it was staged?