Science Fair Participant IntruderLS1

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

IntruderLS1 will be presenting a project against the "Global Warming" concept.

These are not discussion threads, they are intended solely for the purpose of the participants presenting information to support each respective theory. I will delete any and all responses posted to this presentation, other than what is posted by the participant.

Thank you and good luck to you Intruder

 

[IntruderLS1]

Global warming hype a scam…

Good morning. As no specific writing format has been set as a requirement, I will be proceeding with my project in the manner of a friendly discussion. My introduction piece, please consider an open letter to you all. I find it to be not only more enjoyable to write, but more enjoyable to read as well. The body of the report will be more traditionally organized for grading purposes.

For those of you who are offended at the very title of this report, which I suspect several of you are, let me say this; the science of our planet and our combined future is a passionate subject. I personally feel that the global warming debate has been good for humanity as a whole, because true or not it is driving us to be cleaner, more responsible world citizens. Very few among us would argue that point I think.

Over the course of this report, I intend to bring history, science, common sense, modern politics, and business to bear in support of my argument. We’ll travel through time to mini ice ages, global warm ups from days gone by, wine fields from chilly Great Britton grand enough to encourage the King of France lay wake nights, and talk about the fears that global cooling will end us all.

Fast forward to modern day and we’ll talk about legitimate scientific observations. The advances the space age has revealed, political gain by few, and the ever present American corporate profits.

The goal of this paper is not to convince you that global warming issues should be ignored. As mentioned, I very much appreciate the fact that it is bringing attention to a topic that has always been very important to me: environmental responsibility. Let the stated goal of this paper be to bring light to a topic of great modern concern, and encourage critical thinking in an era of general acceptance.

I’ll try to deliver one section each night for the next three nights. I look forward very much to the discussion that will hopefully follow.

Warmest Regards with No Pun Intended,

IntruderLS1

 

[IntruderLS1]

What happened yesterday?

The history of global climate change is fairly well accepted in most circles. The big picture of global temperature fluctuations can be seen clearly in the following three graphs:










When most people express concern over global warming, the problem they have is not Earth’s natural cycle, but mankind’s interference with that cycle. While this section of the report will try to stay strictly in the lines of historical background, we will deal with human contributions in part three.

If we were to travel too deeply into the ancient world’s weather cycles, it would be impossible to keep this document short enough to not exceed our four post limit. Instead, let’s focus on times closer to our own. There have been several named mass weather changes in the past several hundred years. Some of you may be familiar with the terms Roman Warming (200BC & 600AD), Little Ice Age (1500 – 1850 A.D.) from which we are currently still recovering, and the Medieval Warming (950-1300AD). (http://americandaily.com/article/13701) All of these major global events happened before mankind was contributing in any significant way to our atmosphere.

In my introduction I made mention of British grapes. According to Dennis Avery who is the director of the Center for Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute,

“British wine-making thrived during the Medieval Warming, failed during the Little Ice Age (1300 to 1850), and began to make a comeback in the 1950s, after major world temperature surges between 1850–70 and 1920–40. The uncertain quality of today's British wine grapes indicates that Britain still isn't as warm now as during the Roman and Medieval Warmings.

This argues that we're in a long, natural climate cycle. So does the fact that more than 70 percent of the planet's recent warming occurred before 1940, and thus before humans emitted much CO2. Ice cores and seabed sediments show the 1500-year cycle extending back 900,000 years, and carbon 14 isotopes say it's linked to variations in the sun's irradiance.“ (http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1206/1206britishwinegrapes.htm)

I mention these facts because wine, and the art of growing and fermenting grapes provide an outstanding real human record that is untainted by the politics of global weather pattern fears. They give us crystal clear snapshots of actual human activity being affected by real weather changes well before science began tracking them on a global scale. Wine connoisseurs are very sensitive to the conditions under which their wine grapes have been grown (http://www.oregonwine.org/Discover_Oregon_Wine/Importance_Of_Place/). As such, vineyard operators become more successful as their native territory becomes better suited for the crop.

In more recent times (1940-1970) there was great fear in certain circles that the earth was cooling unnaturally due to human activity. (TIME Magazine Archive Article -- Another Ice Age? -- Jun. 24, 1974) This was an easy thing to ‘prove’ due to the fact that Earth was factually cooling off, and human activity was in fact ramping up exponentially. World War II was in progress, Nuclear bombs were being test detonated all over the globe, the cold war was producing massive military activity world wide, and the industrial capabilities of North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia were expanding at a geometric rate. (http://www.britannica.com/)

What is happening today?

Size limitations are keeping this much shorter than I would like. Let’s all agree that the globe has shown a strong warming spike in the past 20 years. As with all things however, historical background is important. I came across this graphic which shows the same information presented in two different ways. To me, it is quite telling. We are generally shown the latter half of the top graph. We are almost NEVER shown the bottom graph.

The Department of Energy has tracking information for global CO2 emission until 2005. They are trending up sharply. From 1990 to 2005, global CO2 emissions have gone from 21,394.92Million Metric Tons to 28,192.7 Million Metric tons a year. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls) This increase of almost 6,800 Million Metric Tons of CO2 Emissions has not directly correlated with temperature increases.

From my skeptic’s view using a common sense approach, and looking at historical trends in historical context, I see current warming trends as nothing to be concerned over, and certainly nothing that mankind is having a dramatic affect on.

Due to size limitations, I will have to continue in our next section. I will be going over mankind’s actual contributions, political and economic gains by some, and common misconceptions about global warming (Assuming I can cram it all in).

 

[IntruderLS1]

Man’s Contribution to global greenhouse gas levels:
An interesting fact that very few people seem to know, is that water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. Estimates typically range from around 70% (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming_2.html) to over 95% (http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html). Below are a few graphs which demonstrate pretty clearly what this means in real terms:

(Table 4A cut due to character overflow)​

Because water makes up such a large majority of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere, the total percentage of man made contribution world wide is approximately one quarter of one percent. That is 0.28%. (http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html).

For reasons I cannot identify, most of the arguments for global warming ignore the effect of water in our atmosphere. The most logical arguments I have read are that the increase in greenhouse gasses discussed in the study’s are exclusively the man made variant and therefore all natural sources are either ignored or accepted as baseline. This would be a fine argument if the study was simply putting a number on man made contributions to our atmosphere. The problem comes in when the report oversteps its boundaries, and ties information to global warming (in which case base information becomes intensely relevant).

When water vapor is taken out of the picture, the amount of CO2 humans put into the atmosphere vs. nature is a very small percentage. Mankind contributes approximately 1/30th of CO2 gains each year. (http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/natural-emissions-dwarf-humans.html).

The argument is that even though it is relatively a small contribution, the Earth was balanced before mankind’s additions, and now that balance has been ruined. When viewed through the scope of total effect however, our 1/30th addition to CO2 levels is equal to only 0.117% of total greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere (Table 4a above). It is difficult for me to accept that a planet that has warmed and cooled dozens of times in its history is balanced to that level of precision.

Scientific consensus:
Pop culture leads me to believe that most people believe there is consensus in the scientific community that mankind’s activity is causing global warming. (Source: General common knowledge) The fact is however that this is simply not true. There is agreement that the globe is warming on average, but not that mankind is driving this change.

Large numbers of scientists are coming out and speaking directly against the common misconception that man is driving global change. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition:

“The Oregon Petition is the name commonly given to a petition opposed to the Kyoto protocol, organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) between 1999 and 2001. During this period the United States was negotiating with other countries on implementation of the protocol before the Bush administration withdrew from the process in 2001.[1] Former U.S. National Academy of Sciences President Frederick Seitz wrote a cover letter endorsing the petition.

The Oregon Petition was the fourth, and by the far the largest, of five prominent efforts claimed to show that a scientific consensus does not exist on the subject of global warming, following the 1992 Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming, the Heidelberg Declaration and the Leipzig Declaration. The petition site asserts that the number of signatures is approximately 19,000.[2]”

Despite the availability of this information, the modern media, and therefore many in the public, call manmade global warming scientifically agreed on “fact.”

Who gains by manmade global warming ideas?
I've gone several thousand characters over my allowance, and have had to cut this section. My answers were essentially, the media and Socialists.

 

[IntruderLS1]

Well dear friends, the time has finally come to draw conclusion to this mess.

I hereby swear to myself that I won't go over my word limit and spend as much time taking information out as putting information in. :smiley24:

The last graph of the presentation is taken from Al Gores recent film "Inconvenient Truth."



This is a chart comparing greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere to global temperatures. I don't think there can be any doubt the two are linked. The problem for the global warming argument however, is HOW they are linked.

If you look closely, the temperatures begin to move up BEFORE the greenhouse gas levels in each cycle. If anything, this graph works to discredit man made global warming.

As the globe warms, water begins to evaporate faster, and greenhouse gas levels logically increase. In no instance recorded here does the gas level cause the temperature to move.

When viewed as a whole, there can be no mistaking the fact that global temperature change is a natural, long term process.

Having written this entire report, I stand by my opening idea that pollution is inherently a bad thing. In this authors opinion, if the global warming scam is what it takes to move the world in a cleaner direction, then so be it. Through education though, I believe it is of critical importance to keep our politicians in line when it comes to imposing government regulations on the populations of the world in the name of this myth. It has terrible potential to be a power grab if left unchecked.

Thank you all. Good night, and God bless America.

(And God save the Queen for our good cousins of Britain)

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Okay this will now become immortalized in the Science Section as a sticky

Thanks again Scott:clap