Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Debunking CO2 Myths

The eccentricity of the earth, or the distance between the earth and sun, varies over thousands of years in it’s travel through the Milky Way. But there is a one to one correlation between that distance, and temperature on the earth. The closer the earth is to the sun, the warmer the temperatures on the earth, the further away earth is, the colder the temperatures. This cycle, called the Milankovitch Cycle, is a 100,000 year cycle. At the bottom of each 100,000 year cycle, the earth experiences an ice age, at the other extreme of that cycle, the glaciers are gone, and the earth is at its warmest. Guess what end of that cycle the earth is currently in? Yup, the closest, and the warmest, and the earth will soon be cooling (probably already begun).

It is true that when temperatures rise, CO2 also rises. This is a result of several factors, more growth, more forestation, longer growing seasons, more kelp in the oceans, etc. But a well published chart shows this correlation has existed for at least the last 500 thousand years, and every cycle but the last occurred before man even knew what carbon fuels were.

This is the same graph that Al Gore showed all those elementary kids in making his case that when CO2 increases, global temperatures increase. He was lying, it works the other way around, and Al Gore knew it. Using Gore’s logic, the rising CO2 levels caused the earth to move closer to the sun. Not likely.

Here’s another view of CO2. CO2 makes up about 300 ppm of the earth’s atmosphere, that means that for every 1,000,000 parts of everything else in the atmosphere, 300 of those parts are CO2. So do your own tests. Let’s say you have a 1,000,000 gallon pool of water, maintained at 90 degrees; and of that 1 million gallons, 300 gallons of it is 95 degree Gatorade. Do you think the temperature of the pool of water will drop by removing the Gatorade? Not hardly, the quantity of warmer Gatorade is insignificant.

The climate change crowd are wont to blame global warming, as minuscule as it may be (and completely disputed by others), on man and his use of carbon fuels, etc. Man is the guilty party here, else why political action to stop whatever it is man is guilty of, so action must be taken to reverse the trend.

Water is also a greenhouse gas, in fact, H2O and CO2 have almost identical greenhouse properties, yet environmentalists want only to focus on CO2, why not H2O? There is roughly 100 times more H2O in the atmosphere than CO2. In my example of the pool of water, why would you try to affect the temperature of the pool by addressing the 300 gallons of Gatorade, and not the 1 million gallons of water? It makes no sense.

Weather is a function of temperature and pressure. The atmosphere responds to temperature and pressure, and it doesn’t care what’s in that atmosphere, H2O, CO2, or any other gas. When temperature increases, water vapor in the atmosphere increases, when pressure decreases, the water falls out in the form of rain, snow, hail, or dew. The atmosphere is a self-regulating marvel, it will not be over-heated, or under-cooled. Nearly all of the worthless computer models predict rising global temperatures as a result of an anticipated rise in CO2 levels, but none of these take into consideration real weather factors such as this. More total energy leaves the earth's surface in evaporated water than through thermal radiation. If the earth does start to warm, more moisture is sucked into the atmosphere, and when it rains or snows, more heat is radiated upward. When this water turns to rain up in the sky, that energy is released as radiation in the frequency of water vapor. So there is a huge source of radiation far above the surface of the earth that will skew the H2O readings at the top of the atmosphere and mislead many to assume that CO2 is far more effective in absorbing radiation than is water.

And since CO2 only adds the weight of the carbon in it’s molecule (the oxygen molecule is already there), the real addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is even less than environmentalists would have us believe. Global warming disciples like to talk about “feedback” from the CO2 in the atmosphere, but numerous experiments have shown that CO2 provides no more feedback than does H2O. And though there is variability across the earth, (deserts, mountains, etc), 70% of the earth is water and is the overpowering force on weather.

If someone with more education than you gives you a 500 page study, full of calculus and scientific terms you don't understand, that concludes a battleship can be lifted out of the water with a single strand of sewing thread, what would you do? Would you accept it as fact because the other person is "smarter" or apply your own education and your own common sense and state there must be an error somewhere in those 500 pages of calculations.

Thanks to http://www.globalwarmingtested.com/ for the foregoing data.

No comments: