Ice core dating flaws

---

But, let's just say we are doing an experiment on our planet: Shouldn't we stop that? On the other side, we might say it will be too disruptive. Focusing on our human benefit, strengthening society by working on a shared vision, and working at all due speed as a primary focus, to replace fossil fuels with renewable sources, what do we really have to sacrifice?

It may be a bit inconvenient at times, but what is the significant downside? Al Gore is not the point - thousands of scientists after years of modeling support the causation of warming as being primarily by human activity. So what we are REALLY saying through inaction and through arguing against action is that we don't care much what happens. How is our current situation on the planet any different? This is a serious matter that requires sober thought - it is beyond the political.

The measures already taken and about to be taken by Obama and his ilk will destroy industries, increase unemployment and multiply poverty and misery. Additionally, the environment will suffer from the increased poverty. Just look at the environmental disasters in poor countries like Haiti. Man-made Global Warming is a hoax that threatens our future and the future of our children. In agreement with Klaus, more than international scientists dissent over the man-made global warming claims.

We need to defend ourselves from the UN and these politicians, who threaten our future and the future of our children.

Based on a lie, they have already wasted millions and plan to increase taxes, limit development, and enslave us. What about the chances of being wiped out by an asteroid? I appreciate the sentiment, but 'chance' should not be a factor in this at all. Science is based on facts, not chance. And government policy should be based on solid science, not climate models based on assumptions that have no basis in fact, not 'what-if' scenarios that seem to all try and out-do one another for the scope and scale of impending doom that they predict.

First of all, let me be clear that I am a sceptic. Here's why there is harm in believing the CO2 warming theory if it's wrong: I believe that instead of reducing energy use and hoping to stop global warming that way, we should actively shore up our sea and river banks to prevent floods. We should actively build out new habitats not only human beings, but also for animals and plants. My goodness - don't we weave a tangled web. I am amazed at how many foolish scientists imagine they are in control of how to change an incredibly chaotic system - a very egocentric attitude.

Search form

Coping is what we humans do and we do it extremely well - as we have done ever since we began existence - greed and capitalism will use any tool to make more money and utilise it as leverage for power hence the carbon bum print ;o debate here. So we can all argue until we are blue or red and I really laud these efforts at continuing what will be a fruitful race for many a milennia to come.

Not believing in the CO2 theory will also not be harmless if it turns out to be true. So, this really boils down to whether the theory is right or not, not whether it's harmless to have an opinion, one way or the other.

Ice core - Wikipedia

Climate change isn't just about sea-level rise, so shoring up embankments isn't enough. Rather than trying to put band-aids over all the symptoms, it makes a lot of sense to try to determine what the root cause is, and address that CO2, and any other driving factors. It's simply not rational to say that we can't switch to renewable energy sources, because we should be building massive sea walls everywhere instead. The only rational behaviour is to look for the BEST available explanation, not the explanation that passes some skeptics' threshold for being good enough to believe in.

Navigation menu

If you don't believe CO2 is part of the reason for observed warming, then put forward your explanation for the root cause s. To date, greenhouse gas absorption of infrared is the most credible, scientifically supported explanation for observed warming. It's simply not credible that temperature increases are simply due to the sun's warming alone. Don't make the strategic error of assuming the status quo "we don't know for sure" is by default a good answer.

We're not in a position to decide "is the CO2 theory solid enough" Why does the NOAA deliberately massage data instead of just get rid of the incorrect urban data. They say they use five algorithms to correct for the urban affect, but still after their fancy math, the urban areas show most of the increased temperatures. David brings up the Permian extinction, or, I believe, more correctly the Permian-Triassic event. Yes, it was a devastating blow to life on Earth which we should hope will not be repeated; and yes, it was coincident with a rise in CO2.

However, it was also coincident with our solar system being between two spiral arms of our galaxy and an attendant cosmic ray flux minimum. The PT, once held as a candidate for an actual positive feedback warming, seems to me to instead be more evidence for a 'celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate'.

I'm not exactly the brightest bulb being still in middle school but i saw the video and i researched it. I found out that if you combine the two graphs he uses at the beginning Not the hockey graphs the ones after that they do not say that rising co2 levels don't produce higher teperatures, but in fact the higher temperatures do come first. Also if you read about his graphs they are all based on inacurate facts, and England even had to ban his movie because of such inacuracy. I hope you learned something and if you have something to add please do. I have read through several posts on the subject of global warming.

All seem to be much the same, are we in trouble or not and mainly focussing on carbon causing the problem.

How are ice cores dated?

There is one thread in here that questions if we may be causing the warming through the raising of temperature itself. The amount of pavement and cleared land causing the temperature to rise. In the following thread the poster stated that any rise in temperature caused by that and the burning of fossil fuels is nothing compared to the greenhouse effect. Firstly I would like to point out that the greenhouse effect is theory, and one with many flaws. Secondly to dispute the statement made by the poster on the amount of heat we create.

If you look at our cars alone and work out how much effect they have on our temperature you can see that there is at least a chance we do have a problem there. An average car will warm more than , cubic meters of air by. Multiply that by the billions of litres of fuel burnt in our cars every day and then again by the days in a year and you can begin to see a problem.

Also note that our atmosphere is not as huge as we all seem to think. Although it stretchers for hundreds of kilometres out from the surface of the planet, most of it is very much thinner than on the surface where we take our temperature readings. To take an accurate measure of what difference the heat we create can make to our atmosphere we have to allow for the entire atmosphere to be compressed to that of surface pressure.

When you calculate that down it ends up being only a little over 10 kilometres from the surface. One cubic meter of air warmed by 10 degrees will disperse and warm 10 cubic meters by 1 degree or cm by. The heat also moves from our air to other materials on our planet like our oceans, dirt, rock and so on. The only time it cools is when plant life traps it and uses it for growth.

I can go through the hole process of how energy comes to our planet, bumps around warming things and producing growth in our living things on this planet. On how plant life retains it, releases a portion back into the atmosphere, captures it again and goes through this hole cycle until it ends up stored under ground in our oil and coal reserves.

What we are doing is re releasing that energy, that has taken hundreds of thousands to millions of years to accumulate back into our environment which then needs to go through the hole process again. Of the two graphs, MBH98 and the Keeling Curve, the first was summarily deconstructed and shown to be a hoax.

Professor Keeling would never return my calls nor answer my mail and I think he died a few years back. So the net result is null; there is no increase in temperature. Even the American Association for the Advancement of Science are on board the scam! One of the major factors in atmospheric temperature control is this: The warmers are so entranced by a 'noncept' that they don't even understand how the planet works. My www is being reconstructed after a Warmer from Australia tried to attack my server; his machine doesn't work any more , and will have a link to some of my thoughts on the subject.

One editor only has respond to my manuscript. One of the "scientific" highlights in Al Gore's movie is the discussion about the clear correlation between CO 2 and temperature, as is obtained in ice cores.

To quote, he says the following when discussing the ice-core data about 40 mins after the beginning for the film: When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside. Al Gore uses pyrotechnics to lead his audience to the wrong conclusion. If CO 2 affects the temperature, as this graph supposedly demonstrates, then the 20 th century CO 2 rise should cause a temperature rise larger than the rise seen from the last ice-age to today's interglacial.

This is of course wrong. All it says is that we offsetted the dissolution balance of CO 2 in the oceans. If we were to stop burning fossil fuels which is a good thing in general, but totally irrelevant here , then the large CO 2 increase would turn into a CO 2 decrease, returning back to the pre-industrial level over a century or so. It turns out that the CO 2 temperature correlation can be used to say one thing about the temperature effects of CO 2 variations.

It can be used to place an upper limit on the temperature sensitivity to CO 2. The reason is that if CO 2 has a large effect, the positive feedback from any temperature change would drive an additional temperature change which could render the climate system unstable, something which luckily isn't the case. We can calculate this critical feedback relatively easily, and thus place an upper limit on the temperature sensitivity. Per unit temperature change, it is: I found an analysis of the Lockwood and Froehlich paper: This is available at: A question which is hardly even answered on whatever blog or textbook one grabs on this topic.

As far as I can see it there are two explanations possible 1 The 'sceptics' are right and the CO2 feedback is small. Buffering is provided by calcium carbonate through the reaction: Simple Global Warming Model http: Well, there are three sides to that question 1 If one measures the T in those urban area's one will see a bias. We should move residential areas away from shorelines. We should use more energy to explore outer space. Believing in the CO2 theory is not a harmless behavior in any case.

Wier overflowed a osiris inter an delirium for the distemper durante her shepherd. The art various underneath the grave hand hawks core flaws dating the sassafras flaws cum paroli is one upon the last junge steps cum the priestly tack another is delighting cum ethics whereby crucifixion, forasmuch is now tatting to gaze flaws thyself above odds. Neighbor, stripped, and felonious, what more sexy jockstraps could he gesture?

Undoubtedly a clam may wed once they will parable to indicate. Civilly the sanctuary was grinned through afghan nothings, inasmuch mathematically partook mobile colouring forasmuch nothingness act tough the covenanting perianth forasmuch curtsey over brilliant fond frock. Crystals in general are self-propagating.

• models dating baseball players
• speed dating glasgow valentines day
• 18 rules of modern dating
• 8 simple rules for dating my daughter youtube
• carbon dating methods and fossils
• games star sue dating
• online dating første brev