Global Warming Insanity pt. II

Ahh here again. I tried to do some research so as to prove another point but couldn't find what I needed so I am just going to stick with my original proof.

If you look at the data from the Petit et. al. analysis of the ice cores and make a graph in Excel you will notice that there appears to be a correlation. For the next part I am going to ask a simple question. If you were expecting CO2 to cause temperature increases on a global scale then what would the graph look like? Think on this a little and then look at the next parahgraph.

If you said CO2 goes up first then you would be correct. simple causeality would seem to state that if something causes another thing then that thing must occur first. This follows in the event of a car accident. It is unlikely that a bumper would get dented before the accident. This however is not seen in the Vostok cores as analysed by Petit et. al.. For instance just in the last glacial transition there was a lag of almost 1500 years. the one before that had another lag of several thousand years. This is consistent with the idea that temperature causes CO2 and not the other way around. Since backward causeality, effect before the cause, makes no sense this should be the smoking gun that disproves AGW.

This isn't quite the end though as the argument against this is that CO2 is a "feedback". Basically temperature causes an initial increase in CO2 and then CO2 in turn amplifies the temperature. This seems to fix the problem but in reality only causes a new one. Feedbacks come in two different flavors, positive and negative. An example of a positive feedback would be a bunch of rabbits in a pen and for every x number of months that go by the rabbit population increases by 50%. If you started with lets say 20 rabbits and waited lets say three months then when those months are over you will have 30 rabbits. If you repeat this prossess then you will get 45 rabbits then 67 then about 100 and so on. If this were graphed then it would look like an exponential graph. (sorry about speaking in mathese, I will try to limit it) A negative feedback would be like the rabbits exceeding their food supply and starving themselves to death. That would look logarithmic in nature.

Back to CO2, if the feedback is positive, which it would most likely be, then temperature would increase CO2 which would raise temperature which would raise CO2 etc... until a catastrophic climate catastrophy took place or a negative feedback kicked in to stop the runaway prossess. Conversely if the feedback was negative, either to start with or as a natural cutoff, then to increase our temperature by x amount you would need y amount the first time then 2y the second time then 4y the next time and so on. Essentially the amount of CO2 we as a species would have to produce to have the kind of effect described would require such a large amount of CO2 that I would wager that the air would toxify before we exceeded the 2 degrees centigrade required to bring about total destruction.

And one more thing, the two degrees that are supposed to kill all life on earth, made up. It would have to be as no self-respecting scientist would declare that two is the magic number that would cause mass extinctions. How could I know? Simple, just 126k years ago the temperature was 3.06 degrees higher than it is today. Just 126k years, not 126 mya not 126 bya (universe wasn't around then anyway) but 126k years ago. Our ancesters were even around then. So much of the evidence is made up that to look at it makes me cry.

Why do I care? Because, I love science. Especially cosmology, gotta love the universe. When I see these global warming fanatics I become irritated by their use of science. Rather then subjecting their ideas and hypotheseis to the facts they instead subject the facts to their hypotheseis. This is completely contrary to the scientific prossess and is a disgrace.

This was a long post, I will finish this someother time with a why segment. Right now I am tired of doing research and am taking a break.

Sources: Vostok core data ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/co2nat.txt and ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/deutnat.txt

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/page.cfm?tagID=273 (the bit about 2 degrees killing everyone.)