Some interesting earth history
Discussion
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005...
"Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 22° C (72° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today!
Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!
Earth's atmosphere today contains about 370 ppm CO2 (0.037%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm."
"To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming."
"Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 22° C (72° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today!
Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!
Earth's atmosphere today contains about 370 ppm CO2 (0.037%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm."
"To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming."
back when I was in school (I'm young so not that long ago) the experts in the early 80s were warning of an impending ice age. Now its global warming - its purely because CO2 is a by product of a taxable fuel source (which we all know). It amazes me that people forget that only 20 years ago were were in the tail end of a mini ice age. Back in the 1800s the Thames would freeze solid and people had fairs and circuses on it - even Elephants walked on the ice.
What we are doing, or rather the experts, is trying to change nature by concentrating solely on a few minor areas. The biggest contribution comes from the burning of rain forrests (releasing trapped CO2), cows farting and solar activity. How come Mars is warming at the same rate?
As the evidence shows too, high CO2 levels = global cooling not warming. We reduce the CO2 we risk setting off irreversable global warming. At lease I'm doing my bit with a v8 so the question is Richard what you bought now?
What we are doing, or rather the experts, is trying to change nature by concentrating solely on a few minor areas. The biggest contribution comes from the burning of rain forrests (releasing trapped CO2), cows farting and solar activity. How come Mars is warming at the same rate?
As the evidence shows too, high CO2 levels = global cooling not warming. We reduce the CO2 we risk setting off irreversable global warming. At lease I'm doing my bit with a v8 so the question is Richard what you bought now?
Also methane is 25x more powerful than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Whats happened with that!? Both are increasing..
I have sadly purchased a 1997 Ford Fairmont with 45,000 on the clock for now. It is RWD and a sedan and large, engine is also 4L so my CO2 producing credentials are retained somewhat.
I am in the market for a vxr8 when the prices fall further. I can get my mates SS when he sells, but with the vxr8's falling nicely and all the ESVA requirements and hassle I think Ill just wait till the vxr8 comes in at the right price. Maybe mid 08.
I have sadly purchased a 1997 Ford Fairmont with 45,000 on the clock for now. It is RWD and a sedan and large, engine is also 4L so my CO2 producing credentials are retained somewhat.
I am in the market for a vxr8 when the prices fall further. I can get my mates SS when he sells, but with the vxr8's falling nicely and all the ESVA requirements and hassle I think Ill just wait till the vxr8 comes in at the right price. Maybe mid 08.
Some interesting facts... the methane from cows actually comes out of the cows mouth rather than's it's backside. Currently cows contribute to australia's emissions of something like 4%. BUT... there is research now underway, to give cows the enzimes that are present in a kangaroo's stomach, as these ezimes will cut down the methane produced by 95%. Apparently these ezimes are unique to australia, and the kangaroo.
Did anyone see programs recently about Methane etc, In Siberia, trapped in the ice packs, and lakes ?
Trapped, created from rotting vegetation many years ago, but being released as the ice melts.
The punched a hole in the ice, and lit it. It was like a flame thrower !!!! And methane is a deadly greenhouse gas, far far far worse than CO2 ever will be.
The more gets released, the worse the greenhouse, the more the ice melts.
Its nothing to do with us...its just nature. Anyone who thinks they can defy nature, is a f ucking looney bin.
ie, the governments.
Trapped, created from rotting vegetation many years ago, but being released as the ice melts.
The punched a hole in the ice, and lit it. It was like a flame thrower !!!! And methane is a deadly greenhouse gas, far far far worse than CO2 ever will be.
The more gets released, the worse the greenhouse, the more the ice melts.
Its nothing to do with us...its just nature. Anyone who thinks they can defy nature, is a f ucking looney bin.
ie, the governments.
The latest US satellite figures show temperatures have fallen since 1998, declining in 2007 to a 1983 level - not to mention the newly revised figures for US surface temperatures showing that the 1930s had four of the 10 warmest years of the past century, with the hottest year of all being not 1998, as was previously claimed, but 1934.
The air temperatures in the Arctic were warmer in 1940 than now. The sea ice extent began to diminish in 1950 as air temperatures were going DOWN. If there is no correlation, there can be no causation. Also, never once mentioned in the mainstream media is the fact that the southern hemisphere sea ice extent was at a record MAXIMUM this year.
Think of the atmosphere as 100 cases of 24 one-litre bottles of water - 2,400 litres in all.
According to the global warming theory, rising levels of human-produced carbon dioxide are trapping more of the sun's reflected heat in the atmosphere and dangerously warming the planet.
But 99 of our 100 cases would be nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%), neither of which are greenhouse gases. Only one case - just 24 bottles out of 2,400 - would contain greenhouse gases.
Of the bottles in the greenhouse gas case, 23 would be water vapour.
Water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas, yet scientists will admit they understand very little about its impact on global warming. (It may actually help cool the planet: As the earth heats up, water vapour may form into more clouds and reflect solar radiation before it reaches the surface. Maybe. We don't know.)
The very last bottle in that very last case would be carbon dioxide, one bottle out of 2,400.
Carbon dioxide makes up just 0.04% of the entire atmosphere, and most of that - at least 95% - is naturally occurring (decaying plants, forest fires, volcanoes, releases from the oceans). At most, 5% of the carbon dioxide in the air comes from human sources such as powerplants, cars etc.
So in our single bottle of carbon dioxide, just 50ml is man-made carbon dioxide. Out of our model atmosphere of 2,400 litres of water, just about a shotglass-full is carbon dioxide put there by humans.
The air temperatures in the Arctic were warmer in 1940 than now. The sea ice extent began to diminish in 1950 as air temperatures were going DOWN. If there is no correlation, there can be no causation. Also, never once mentioned in the mainstream media is the fact that the southern hemisphere sea ice extent was at a record MAXIMUM this year.
Think of the atmosphere as 100 cases of 24 one-litre bottles of water - 2,400 litres in all.
According to the global warming theory, rising levels of human-produced carbon dioxide are trapping more of the sun's reflected heat in the atmosphere and dangerously warming the planet.
But 99 of our 100 cases would be nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%), neither of which are greenhouse gases. Only one case - just 24 bottles out of 2,400 - would contain greenhouse gases.
Of the bottles in the greenhouse gas case, 23 would be water vapour.
Water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas, yet scientists will admit they understand very little about its impact on global warming. (It may actually help cool the planet: As the earth heats up, water vapour may form into more clouds and reflect solar radiation before it reaches the surface. Maybe. We don't know.)
The very last bottle in that very last case would be carbon dioxide, one bottle out of 2,400.
Carbon dioxide makes up just 0.04% of the entire atmosphere, and most of that - at least 95% - is naturally occurring (decaying plants, forest fires, volcanoes, releases from the oceans). At most, 5% of the carbon dioxide in the air comes from human sources such as powerplants, cars etc.
So in our single bottle of carbon dioxide, just 50ml is man-made carbon dioxide. Out of our model atmosphere of 2,400 litres of water, just about a shotglass-full is carbon dioxide put there by humans.
I think the point about water vapour is a relevant one. Did a bit of research on this recently. It's effect as a greenhouse gas is apparently significant, but it's thought to regulate the planet's temperature.
However, as everyone seems hellbent on developing fuel cells (claiming that these will be the cars of the future), which of course emit nothing but water. Can anyone see where this is going when it's 'discovered' that water is a greenhouse gas?
Oh yes. That'll be more tax please.
However, as everyone seems hellbent on developing fuel cells (claiming that these will be the cars of the future), which of course emit nothing but water. Can anyone see where this is going when it's 'discovered' that water is a greenhouse gas?
Oh yes. That'll be more tax please.
ads_green said:
It's not global warming or cooling now but general climate change.
They probably chose that term now, because they know it isnt warming up...so need to prepare for the next round of extortion propoganda BSThe earth changes....nature changes, life changes.
Get used to it, WE certainly cant change it.
Interesting article here with plenty of scientific references etc.
Three Stages of Knowledge and the IPCC
Our scientific understanding of global warming has gone through three stages:
1985–2003
Old ice core data led us to strongly suspect that CO2 causes global warming.
2003–2007
New ice core data eliminated previous reason for suspecting CO2. No evidence to suspect or exonerate CO2.
From Aug 2007
Know for sure that greenhouse is not causing global warming. CO2 no longer a suspect.
http://www.mises.org/story/2795
Three Stages of Knowledge and the IPCC
Our scientific understanding of global warming has gone through three stages:
1985–2003
Old ice core data led us to strongly suspect that CO2 causes global warming.
2003–2007
New ice core data eliminated previous reason for suspecting CO2. No evidence to suspect or exonerate CO2.
From Aug 2007
Know for sure that greenhouse is not causing global warming. CO2 no longer a suspect.
http://www.mises.org/story/2795
ringram said:
Interesting article here with plenty of scientific references etc.
Three Stages of Knowledge and the IPCC
Our scientific understanding of global warming has gone through three stages:
1985–2003
Old ice core data led us to strongly suspect that CO2 causes global warming.
2003–2007
New ice core data eliminated previous reason for suspecting CO2. No evidence to suspect or exonerate CO2.
From Aug 2007
Know for sure that greenhouse is not causing global warming. CO2 no longer a suspect.
http://www.mises.org/story/2795
But if you read David Evans further, you'll also find him say "There is a warming effect due to the extra carbon we humans have put into the atmosphere.". He just doesn't think think that the observational evidence points to it being the primary factor.Three Stages of Knowledge and the IPCC
Our scientific understanding of global warming has gone through three stages:
1985–2003
Old ice core data led us to strongly suspect that CO2 causes global warming.
2003–2007
New ice core data eliminated previous reason for suspecting CO2. No evidence to suspect or exonerate CO2.
From Aug 2007
Know for sure that greenhouse is not causing global warming. CO2 no longer a suspect.
http://www.mises.org/story/2795
One of the challenges brought about by the internet is that whilst it frees people to find views which challenge their naturally held beliefs, they tend to hang around in places which reinforce their existing views. How much time do you spend in anti-car forums
John
None, they are for communists and sycophants 
Most are in the government (ie communists) who for reasons known only to themselves want energy independance so support the carbon emissions agenda.
However they should look at the inefficiency and waste that is government themselves, how can the government waste 42% of national GDP!? If you want to see carbon footprint, take a look right there. If it was me Id be able to slash that by at least 50%! DWP gone. HMRC almost all gone (well, zero taxes except for a single consumption tax) That doesnt even touch on the private sector overheads of managing payroll, corporate and other taxes.. All carbon emitting waste! Forget transport its a diversion from the real source of waste in this country!
Anyway I digress..
Most are in the government (ie communists) who for reasons known only to themselves want energy independance so support the carbon emissions agenda.
However they should look at the inefficiency and waste that is government themselves, how can the government waste 42% of national GDP!? If you want to see carbon footprint, take a look right there. If it was me Id be able to slash that by at least 50%! DWP gone. HMRC almost all gone (well, zero taxes except for a single consumption tax) That doesnt even touch on the private sector overheads of managing payroll, corporate and other taxes.. All carbon emitting waste! Forget transport its a diversion from the real source of waste in this country!
Anyway I digress..
Edited by ringram on Thursday 13th December 11:50
In case you thought I hadnt finished on this topic
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/08/study-glob...
"Researchers at the University of Leeds (UK) and the World Land Trust have concluded that up to nine times as much carbon dioxide could be emitted using biofuels compared to conventional gasoline and diesel"
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/08/study-glob...
"Researchers at the University of Leeds (UK) and the World Land Trust have concluded that up to nine times as much carbon dioxide could be emitted using biofuels compared to conventional gasoline and diesel"
Gassing Station | HSV & Monaro | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff