Please review my AGW Global warming argument for soundness and offer critique

[TheAuger]

1. Global CO2 levels fluctuate between .036 -.038% of total planetary atmospheric gasses.

 

2. Advocates of AGW hypothesis support lowering plantery levels of CO2.

 

3. CO2 is essential for plant metabolism.

 

4.  If planetary CO2 levels fall nearer to 0%, then the metabolism of naturally occurring flora will be challenged.

 

5.  Therefore, advocates of AGW hypothesis support challenging plant metabolism on a planetary scale.

 

(Obviously, there are other natural sources of CO2, and it would be unlikely for planetary CO2 levels to ever fall to 0% -- but it's a way of pointing out to the "anti-carbon zealots" that as CO2 lessens from it's already trace amounts, plant life on a planetary scale will suffer.)

[shirgall]

Keep the long perspective on this. Wikipedia states, but has no citation for the statement "Carbon dioxide concentrations dropped from 7,000 parts per million during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago to as low as 180 parts per million during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years."

 

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html makes it seem like 280 ppm is where we should be, instead of approaching 400.

[dsayers]

Therefore, advocates of AGW hypothesis support challenging plant metabolism on a planetary scale.

Can you define AGW advocate please? For example, I accept that "theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral." It would be erroneous to describe this as advocating it since it's an accurate description of the real world. You can't really advocate that Earth's gravitational pull is 9.8 m/s^2.

 

To me, the term advocate in a political context means advocates violence against those who disagree. In which case, I think it would be more beneficial to draw attention to an immoral willingness for violence against humans than to the consequences for plant life.

 

Other hurdle could include that a rise in temperature would lead to increased saturation of CO2 in the atmosphere, so their correlation isn't necessarily directional. Also, plants are going to adapt as all life does. If there ends up being more/less CO2 higher/lower temperatures, all life will just adapt to those changes.

[AccuTron]

Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet

 

I didn't save the original link of the above, but I suspect keyword searching will bring it up.  It has a distinctive look, and easy to quickly spot.  If I find a link later, I'll add it here.

 

In this above image, we see many interesting things, so do, do, do, study this in detail.  We specifically see that CO2 rises with every interglacial warm period.  CO2 has been rising for 18,000 years.  

 

Repeat:   CO2 has been rising for ~18,000 years.  This is normal.  

 

So don't sweat any CO2 reading you hear of, we aren't really doing anything.  We screw up lots else, which the fraud uses as a foothold, and the fraud is crushing some of the help that should have gone to the real problems.  

 

You can easily search that normal climate went to a chill zone early 1800's, and has been warming since about 1850.  So of course any reading on record is warmer than earlier, if the records aren't before 1850.  There's been tons of data doctoring too.

 

Gore made up this stuff back as a grad student in the eighties, and ultimately worked a gig thru Goldman Sachs, who were frauds leading up to the 2008 crash, and with Ken Lay, of Enron, 11 convictions for fraud, who (I say conveniently) died of a heart attack before sentencing to 10-20 years.  Look this up right now, as you read it here, so you believe it.  "Gore, Goldman Sachs, Enron, Ken Lay"  Some of it is already in my mega-thread.

 

Note here that Ken Lay, 11 convictions for fraud later, had earlier sent a personal rep to Kyoto to see that cap and trade was passed, a subsequent "victory for Enron." (link included in my threads)  Cap and trade is a victory for later convictions for fraud.  Get that???  Who gets PAID on these trades, what traders?  Are you guessing names yet?

 

Gore is on his way to being the world's first carbon billionaire, works thru a shady group called I think AIG, which invests in green carbon projects worldwide, and the powers behind AIG are shady and unknown.  Your president had Kerry as Sec.State, instructing State employees that global warming was #1 priority.  Pure fraud is priority, follow the voting power on that one.  (Source Wall St. Journal in recent years.)  

 

Your president wants global warming as his legacy, his words.  Pure fraud, his legacy.  I'd have to check the link, but I think the Virginia state climatologist recently called this fraud something like "the worst assault on science in history."  This is a huge scam, all of it.  And it has big name universities...some of which hire known data-fraudster and global warming "discover" Michael Mann as a prof...that pump out real ditzes, wanting to save the planet, can't think for crap, and I know one.  A teddy bear is wiser.  And don't you know that most staff and students vote Democrat.  Alumni donations, anyone?

 

(Sea level has been rising ~20,000 years, several meters.  Look it up right now; and tell me why the Maldive Islands are suddenly going to disappear, where they didn't for 20,000 years, except an excuse to sue first world countries.)

 

 

The entire, thats's 100%, anthro-warming is bogus, total fabrication, and a lot of people such as Michio Kaku (who also fell for TEPCO's line about a Fukushima 40-year cleanup) and The Science Guy have fallen for it.  They obviously didn't do real research, which a middle school student could easily manage.  

 

Don't listen to anyone who says it's real:  they are fraud or incompetent.  Hansen for example, is a global warming hero, yet if you look at his 1981 paper re CO2 and climate, you see blatantly illegal math and vastly bogus physics on page one (which he has now put into a locked directory so you can't see it; it's available thru other links, and my mega-thread includes a copy of page one).  His own NASA boss called him "an embarrassment to NASA."  This is shown to you in my mega links here in FDR, as explained below.

 

In Gore's own Inconvenient graph, you can see that temperature shift preceded CO2 shift in at least 5 places, but Gore -- who's about to become a Billionaire from this, easy to search under "carbon billionaire" -- doesn't mention this.

 

This and so much more has already been assembled by myself in FDR.  Follow this primary link, and it will link to some other posts, and pleaaassee plan to spend at least two hours on just my stuff.  In my research, I stand upon the shoulders of many very good men, who did years of persistent detective work against the fraudsters and got slandered for it.  Gary Cooper types.  See what they found, that they are slandered for it.

 

For myself, it is the result of what is now ~75 hours of intense research, and reading every word including all comments on (sic) ~1,500 websites, some of which were 30-40 page documents, primarily over a two week period eight years ago.  

(Gut feel was that I bookmarked 3-4% of sites, but being conservative with 10%, which it absolutely wasn't, I have 120+ bookmarks.  120*10=1,200.  And that's the conservative estimate.)

 

I have yet to have one person recognize the enormity of that research, like it might means something.  There are a lot of citizen goober heads, and the bad guys play on that.  Obama says "flat earth society" in response to discovery of massive fraud.  Of course he does, his party wins office by saving the planet, can't admit it's been a scam all along.  

 

This information is mostly a dozen years or so already known, but the scammers cry "big oil" or "flat earth society" and the goober heads, of which I had been one until a chance event, simply don't look at what is right in front of them 24/7.  Real scientists, as you will read below, use words like "low confidence, scandal, not science...."  

 

You will also see examples of the IPCC's own internal documents saying that humans aren't affecting the climate.  Some good researcher did the digging -- instead of listening to slander -- and the excerpts are compared with a senior IPCC official telling US Congress the exact opposite, which requires huge money and gets Democrats huge votes.

 

climate fraud updates - General Messages - Freedomain Radio Message Board

 

 

Note, it will just be a sampler.  Tiny!  It's got the main criminals, the origins, but there is vastly more, and I give you mere samples from a very cluttered media terrain.  If you wish, search phrases such as these -- "climate fraud, Mann fraud, Hansen fraud, Ken Lay climate" -- and you can spend as many dozen hours as you wish pursuing path after path, especially if you read ALL the reader's comments, for that's where most new pathways originate.  

 

You will see a constant fabric of falsified data, illegal math and physics, much much more.  This is vastly greater a...and this is the correct word...conspiracy than anyone, including myself, would ever suspect or believe.  But spend the hours, at least a dozen hours, and that's just getting your feet wet.  Or you won't get it.  It's very very big, the disinformation is gigantic, and you must research very very much.

 

Gore is going for a billionaire.  He's part of a cabal, and doing the research, this is a planet wide spread.  What the heck is Obama and China agreeing upon, if it's not real?  Trillion dollar scam, easily.  Add in all worldwide voters wanting to save the planet, and it's massive voter manipulation for anyone who is green/liberal/leftist/democrat/etc.  Quadrillion dollar crime, easily.  

 

Bad guys will go to lots of trouble to keep that going.  Don't fall asleep on this.

[TheAuger]

Keep the long perspective on this. Wikipedia states, but has no citation for the statement "Carbon dioxide concentrations dropped from 7,000 parts per million during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago to as low as 180 parts per million during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years."

 

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html makes it seem like 280 ppm is where we should be, instead of approaching 400.

 Thanks, shirgall -- we all know the climate fluctuates, but pro AGW warmist alarmists reply that weather fluctuates, but climate doesn't -- which is absurd.

 

Which is also why I try to stay away from terms like "should" in this debate, as in what the climate/temperature/greenhouse gas levels *should* be.  I don't think we have, or ever could have, enough information to determine what the climate *should* be.

Can you define AGW advocate please? For example, I accept that "theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral." It would be erroneous to describe this as advocating it since it's an accurate description of the real world. You can't really advocate that Earth's gravitational pull is 9.8 m/s^2.

 

To me, the term advocate in a political context means advocates violence against those who disagree. In which case, I think it would be more beneficial to draw attention to an immoral willingness for violence against humans than to the consequences for plant life.

 

Other hurdle could include that a rise in temperature would lead to increased saturation of CO2 in the atmosphere, so their correlation isn't necessarily directional. Also, plants are going to adapt as all life does. If there ends up being more/less CO2 higher/lower temperatures, all life will just adapt to those changes.

Can you define AGW advocate please? For example, I accept that "theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral." It would be erroneous to describe this as advocating it since it's an accurate description of the real world. You can't really advocate that Earth's gravitational pull is 9.8 m/s^2.

 

To me, the term advocate in a political context means advocates violence against those who disagree. In which case, I think it would be more beneficial to draw attention to an immoral willingness for violence against humans than to the consequences for plant life.

 

Other hurdle could include that a rise in temperature would lead to increased saturation of CO2 in the atmosphere, so their correlation isn't necessarily directional. Also, plants are going to adapt as all life does. If there ends up being more/less CO2 higher/lower temperatures, all life will just adapt to those changes.

AGW advocate is one who supports the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, and possibly any/all of its implications.

 

The correlation/not necessarilly causation is also a decent argument.  The evidence, to me, suggests that solar cycles create varying climate patterns, which seasonally warm oceans, which contain 50 times the ammount of CO2 than the atmosphere.  And we all know what happens to gas in a warming liquid.

Can you define AGW advocate please? For example, I accept that "theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral." It would be erroneous to describe this as advocating it since it's an accurate description of the real world. You can't really advocate that Earth's gravitational pull is 9.8 m/s^2.

 

To me, the term advocate in a political context means advocates violence against those who disagree. In which case, I think it would be more beneficial to draw attention to an immoral willingness for violence against humans than to the consequences for plant life.

 

Other hurdle could include that a rise in temperature would lead to increased saturation of CO2 in the atmosphere, so their correlation isn't necessarily directional. Also, plants are going to adapt as all life does. If there ends up being more/less CO2 higher/lower temperatures, all life will just adapt to those changes.

AGW advocate is one who supports the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, and possibly any/all of its implications.

 

The correlation/not necessarilly causation is also a decent argument.  The evidence, to me, suggests that solar cycles create varying climate patterns, which seasonally warm oceans, which contain 50 times the ammount of CO2 than the atmosphere.  And we all know what happens to gas in a warming liquid.

[Torero]

1. Global CO2 levels fluctuate between .036 -.038% of total planetary atmospheric gasses.

 

At present. In the geological past those numbers fluctuated drastically, see shirgalls post and the estimated CO2-concentration during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum of about 55 million years ago is 2000 ppm (2 %). Live thrives with/on CO2.

 

And: Zeebe, R.; Zachos, J.C.; Dickens, G.R. (2009). "Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming" Nature Geoscience 2: 576–580.

 

 

2. Advocates of AGW hypothesis support lowering plantery levels of CO2.

 

Atmospheric levels.

 

Which is ridiculous, what do they want to do? Plug volcanoes? Glue mid-ocean ridges together?

 

But please do not call it a hypothesis. That would indicate a scientific base. It does not; it has a political base. Science is just the fancy dress. Advocates I would say is the right term indeed for pushing political "hypotheses"...

 

3. CO2 is essential for plant metabolism.

 

Not only for plants; the whole Earth is breathing and recycling CO2 all the time. The vast area of the oceans take up and produce most of the CO2. You don't even need volcanic eruptions; CO2 is degassed from the surface and soils all the time.

 

4.  If planetary CO2 levels fall nearer to 0%, then the metabolism of naturally occurring flora will be challenged.

 

That is impossible; CO2 is a natural part of the system we only form a tiny tiny part of. Don't listen to global fearmongerers who picture mankind as some kind of threat to the planet....

 

 

5.  Therefore, advocates of AGW hypothesis support challenging plant metabolism on a planetary scale.

 

No, they're after money for air (CO2-taxations and trade deals ) and global governmental power to "stop" the "climate from changing". The vanity of it all is too childish and scary at the same time, knowing that the masses massively fall for this scam.

 

(Obviously, there are other natural sources of CO2, and it would be unlikely for planetary CO2 levels to ever fall to 0% -- but it's a way of pointing out to the "anti-carbon zealots" that as CO2 lessens from it's already trace amounts, plant life on a planetary scale will suffer.)

 

So no; we are far too unimportant on atmospheric, global, climatic scales for the gigantic Earth. Even if we would be able to burn all the fossil fuels in the world, we wouldn't be able to trigger a global climate change; nature responds, adapts, outgasses, inhales, changes, reforms, evolves all the time and our capacities on a global scale are far too limited.

 

That is another problem with this scam; even if you were an environmentalist who cares for governmental policies to protect Earth from those darn unimaginable greedy capitalists, you would also battle against those crooked gas traders. Every penny spent on that scam does not go to tangible environmental problems like deforestation, bad use of lands, pollution of surface and drinking waters, the islands of plastic in the oceans, etc. If one thinks those should be treated by force or by market, in both cases those topics do not get attention while a political scam does.

 

Enron with help of the NASA clowns is behind the CO2 credits. If these crony criminals are involved even the most asleep person should wake up...

 

The Kyoto Conspiracy (Gore, Enron, NASA, Carbon Trading, Global Warming)

 

One of Enron’s major consultants in that study was NASA scientist James Hansen, who started the whole global warming mess in 1988 with his bombastic congressional testimony. Recently he published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences predicting exactly the same inconsequential amount of warming in the next 50 years as the scientists that Enron wanted to gag. They were a decade ahead of NASA.

...

Enron, along with other key energy companies in the so-called Clean Power Group – El Paso Corp., NiSource, Trigen Energy, and Calpine – would make money both coming and going – from selling permits and then their own energy at higher prices. If the Kyoto Protocol were ratified and in full force, experts estimated that Americans would lose between $100 billion and $400 billion each year. Additionally, between 1 and 3.5 million jobs could be lost. That means that each household could lose an average of up to $6,000 each year. That is a lot to ask of Americans just so large energy companies can pocket millions from a regulatory scheme. Moreover, a cost of $400 billion annually makes Enron’s current one-time loss of $6 billion look like pocket change. Little wonder Americans and the incoming Bush administration did not want a bar of it.

 

[sensedata]

Can you define AGW advocate please? For example, I accept that "theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral." It would be erroneous to describe this as advocating it since it's an accurate description of the real world. You can't really advocate that Earth's gravitational pull is 9.8 m/s^2.

 

To me, the term advocate in a political context means advocates violence against those who disagree. In which case, I think it would be more beneficial to draw attention to an immoral willingness for violence against humans than to the consequences for plant life.

 

Other hurdle could include that a rise in temperature would lead to increased saturation of CO2 in the atmosphere, so their correlation isn't necessarily directional. Also, plants are going to adapt as all life does. If there ends up being more/less CO2 higher/lower temperatures, all life will just adapt to those changes.

 

To play devil's advocate, at some point does pollution to the atmosphere become a violation of property rights in the same way that dumping sewage in someones drinking water would be a violation worthy of defensive force?

 

And I respectfully reject your assertation that all life will apapt. If there are drastic fluctuations in CO2 and tempatures as the proponents purport many species will die. Certainly others will likely evolve, but that will likely be long after humans have wiped ourselves out.

 

I personally think most if not all of the AGW claims are exagerrated, and I also think that it's made most of the people who claim to care about the "enviroment" to seem hokey and full of empty buzzwords just to seem compassionate.

[bugzysegal]

If their argument relies on the premise that human produced CO₂ will break through the natural variance at some point, due to industrialization of poorer countries, and that current consumption is therefore unsustainable, I think your argument fails. If they instead argue that emissions should be brought to 0, then your argument stands. No one can deny we affect our environment, it's what marks us as the dominant species. To what extent we are negatively affecting the climate seems a radically complex answer to a deviously simple sounding question.

[dsayers]

The correlation/not necessarilly causation is also a decent argument.  The evidence, to me, suggests that solar cycles create varying climate patterns, which seasonally warm oceans, which contain 50 times the ammount of CO2 than the atmosphere.  And we all know what happens to gas in a warming liquid.

That's what I meant when I referenced correlation. If you saw an increase in temperature and CO2 in the air, it doesn't necessarily mean that the CO2 came first. Even if it did, I think it's presumptive to assume that humans are responsible. Or that humans have the capacity to make a difference in the opposite direction either. There's no question we influence our environment. But humans are but a speck in terms of comparative size. The whole thing, even if it were true, is clearly a nanny State power grab.

 

To play devil's advocate, at some point does pollution to the atmosphere become a violation of property rights in the same way that dumping sewage in someones drinking water would be a violation worthy of defensive force?

Certainly. But in order for a compound that can normally be found in the atmosphere in significant amounts, the amount the offender would have to be responsible for (taking proximity into consideration) I can hardly fathom. Don't forget that due to entropy, any concentration in a fluid naturally dissipates. So even a sustained "dumping" of CO2 into the air would have to be that much more to be truly binding upon others to the point of being a violation of property rights. I just don't see it. Certainly any project capable of that scale would be geographically grand to the point were simply distributing it evenly across all the associated land would be sufficient.

 

Don't forget too that spraying salt water into the air helps to reduce the CO2 levels in that air. So such a facility could simply do that and alleviate the offense. Bottom line, the possibility is statistically improbable with an incredibly simple solution. I just don't see it coming up.

[Anuojat]

Ive been hesitant to post on the forums about this but, being someone whom still holds the position that ive been convinced the global warming and climate change are at the very least occuring partially because of human activity and that such activity is influencing global temperatures and glacier/icemass melting ect.

 

So now when i look the the original post:

 

"1. Global CO2 levels fluctuate between .036 -.038% of total planetary atmospheric gasses."

 

Source for this?

 

"2. Advocates of AGW hypothesis support lowering plantery levels of CO2."

 

As far as i understand it no and certainly not myself. Simply decreasing the human activities that increase Co2 or switching to something that does less of

it.

 

 

"3. CO2 is essential for plant metabolism."

 

Yes.

 

"4.  If planetary CO2 levels fall nearer to 0%, then the metabolism of naturally occurring flora will be challenged."

 

Yes but they will adabt to that. However the halting of the increase of Co2 in the climate cyclation of earth seems to be the goal for most people

whom AWG causes concern so i dont see "0%" as likely outcome.

 

"5.  Therefore, advocates of AGW hypothesis support challenging plant metabolism on a planetary scale."

 

Being againts further increases in Co2 in the cyclation (caused by humans) would not challange plant metabolism. Only if some talk about, and i sure they are out there, decreasing Co2 as a whole instead of jsut the human output.

 

"(Obviously, there are other natural sources of CO2, and it would be unlikely for planetary CO2 levels to ever fall to 0% -- but it's a way of pointing out to the "anti-carbon zealots" that as CO2 lessens from it's already trace amounts, plant life on a planetary scale will suffer.)"

 

This is where it gets tricky because small increases in the Co2 cycling has major effects on both the negative and positive feedback loops on earth climate. So saying that there are only trace amounths of Co2 in the athmosphere at any given time misses the fact that changes to it even subtle have major effects. And again problem is increases in Co2 beyond (and faster) what otherwise would happen is the problem not that theres just too much of it by itself.

 

Now on the other hand if someone is advocating lowering Co2 instread of lowering the output then they would be to say the least, not understanding how climate works or how athmospheric  gasses work.

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------

 

As for other posters here, i would genuinely be interested in some science and peer rewied papers on climate change that show and cast serious dout on AWG effects or its size. Because as i said, i believe based on evidence that we are effecting the planets temperature and Co2 and positive feedback loops in sighnificant IF NOT catastrophic ways.

[Torero]

 No one can deny we affect our environment, it's what marks us as the dominant species. To what extent we are negatively affecting the climate seems a radically complex answer to a deviously simple sounding question.

That's a non-sequitur:

 

- no-one can deny we alter/affect our environment - true, in very drastic and shaping ways

- SO: it seems "obvious", "simple", "clear" to fall for that sca...uhhh accept that "97% of ALLLL the scientists in the world agree upon the human induced Global "Warming"'...uhh..."that New York has been flooded by 2050 by 7 meter sea level rise scare tactics of a pure statist happily propagandising in schools... Gore Goebbels, let's call him.

 

If there's anything not simple it is System Earth, from inside to outside, bottom to top:

- geofysics, geodynamics - stuyding the mysterious interior of the Earth

- geology, geochemistry - studying the rocky crust of her

- hydrology, geography - studying the dynamic surface of the planet

- meteorology, climatology - studying the atmosphere surrounding this blue-green white cushioned (almost) sphere through time (short; your weatherman, long: the climatologist)

 

The easy way out, the pre-fabricated story, the false model, the easy deception, the non-sequitur made "oh, mankind is so dirty, then we also must be responsible for climatic changes, that makes sense, hmm, yeah, never studied any historical climatological examples, but hey, I wanna be part of that 97%, so come on, let's be honest and do not 'deny' (like it's some kind of holocaust... ) climatic changes due to humans?!", it's all the uninformed massed falling for an easily sold but heavily paid lie of grand proportions.

 

"Safely" predicted that in 2100 everything will be doomed. Nobody of them saying this lives then, so what the heck, nobody care if I'm wrong. If that isn't already the case now (try to ask a weatherman to make a reliable model of the weather and they will fail; nature is too unpredictable; too many variables and uncertainties).

 

They go unpunished and therefore they point horrific arrows at "climate change deniers" or other labels only given because they lack arguments to back of their fraudulent scamdalous ponzi scheme.