The Man-Made Global Warming Hoax Database

if it could be PROVEN

I looked at those links. The first covered the mechanics of obtaining the samples. Interesting and all that, but just the mechanics of obtaining samples.
The second one had a chart and covered the time span from the year 1830 to the year 2000. In the post to which you replied I said "The drift I got was that before 430,000 (650,000 years ago) years ago it was 30 percent less than in the last 4 glacial periods.". Seems you went from 650,000 years ago to a time span of 170 years in recent times.
In the Late Ordovician Period CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. But the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age. How are we to reconcile the Greenhouse theory with that level of C02 and an ice age at the same time?

You would have to ignore geological history to think man is responsible for global warming. The grandest of all Junk Science.

"Do you know what CO2 levels
by duckman - 7/22/07 5:44 PM
In reply to: Re: facts. by Kees Bakker Moderator

were before industrialized mankind? Were they higher or lower?"

lower and higher is the most complete answer. what is different is that we are now living in a post industrial age that creates man made co2 emissions. that we have control of; not a pre-human landscape.


" During the Ordovician, Southern Europe, Africa, South America, Antarctica and Australia remained joined together into the supercontinent of Gondwanaland, which had moved down to the South Pole. North America straddled the equator, and was about 45 degrees clockwise from its present orientation. Western and Central Europe were separate from the rest of Eurasia, and were rotated about 90 degrees counterclockwise from their present orientation, and was in the southern tropics. North America is engaged in a slow collision with the microcontinent of Baltica, which forms the core of what is later to become Europe. The Iapetus Ocean continues to shrink as the previously passive margins of Baltica and North America converge. Where the Iapetus was, mountains are thrust up, remnant strata of which remain today in Greenland, Norway, Scotland, Ireland and north-eastern North America. Scotland and England are united into a single landmass.

As a natural consequence, a good deal of attention has been focused on the causes of the Ordovician Ice Age. In fact, it is not easy to see how an ice age could have occurred. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are believed to have been 8 to 20 times their current values. This ought to have prevented anything approaching an ice age. Sea levels were high through most of the Ordovician. They dropped, dramatically (about 50 m), in connection with the ice age, but it is hard to tell whether this was cause, effect, or both. One independent factor which would affect both pCO2 and sea level is the rate of sea floor spreading along mid-ocean ridges. As we might expect, the length of well-established mid-ocean ridges, i.e., the ridge between Gondwana, to the south, and Baltica plus Laurentia, to the north, was unusually short during the Late Ordovician. A former ridge between the two northern continents became inactive about this time. However, there may have been a very long ridge to the Northwest of Laurentia. The information is too sparse to be certain. In any event, the absence of active ocean crust formation would only affect the rate of CO2 outgassing, not the rate at which it was locked away in sediments.

The state of the art in mathematical modeling of the problem is described in the recent work of Hermann et al. (2004). The results are frustratingly uninformative. Sea surface temperatures for the later Ordovician are extremely sensitive to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and to not much else. Even the changes in geography, which brought more land surface close to the South Pole, seem to have little effect on the outcome. The result in the image indeed predicts glaciers in Gondwana at the end of the Late Ordovician. Unfortunately, it also predicts glaciers in Gondwana at the beginning of the Late Ordovician, even with much higher sea levels. Thus, if the models have anything to tell us, it is that there must have been a very strong draw-down of CO2 over the Late Ordovician. No one, at this point, has been able to offer evidence suggesting a plausible agent which would remove roughly half of all atmospheric carbon dioxide in 10-15 My."

we are 10 inches above normal precip this year in hudson valley ny. my little plot is a mini rain forest, tree frogs on the windows as I type

Gray Treefrog (Hyla versicolor)


http://ctamp.homestead.com/treefrogs.html

As mentioned in your link Spring Peeper

I have seen a couple around my property, I was repairing some pavement in my driveway and a frog jumped out from the dirt under the pavement.

New breed of frog? That lives under asphalt?

They interviewed a man a couple weeks ago. He said he was by a pond and the sound of the Peepers was so loud that he had to shout to be heard.

Their conjectures do not explain how the Sahara regions were once lush and fertile nor how Mammoths in Arctic region have been found with fresh grass and flowers in their mouths but such would be explained is such weather patterns were attributable to man.

One should note that these "studies" have a tendency to throw out all data that does not support the intent of the "study".

If you want to fully fund it, I can locate scientists who will be able to definitively "prove" that rainfall patterns (or global warming or most any other natural occurrence or cycle) can be attributed to an imbalance (or conversely a balancing) of the sexes of any mammal or reptile you care to name. JUNK SCIENCE does things like that with no problem. Peer reviewed too!

... no matter what evidence is given that man has an influence on climate, you are going to say it is "junk science".

I can understand being skeptical over computer modeling simply because a computer does what you tell it to do. But, from what I read this study is based on actual measurement of rainfall patterns and the valid data then was compared to computerized predictions to try and account for why the patterns have changed. Best explanation is the activity of man. I would like to see what other possibilities were considered but such a limited article as what is cited will of course not go into that great a detail.

BTW... as far as I see, their conjecture does not explain the Sahara veldt turning to desert and the feeding habits of Mammoths because they didn't set out to explain such things.

Daddy, why is the sky blue?

I don't know son... but what has that got to do with you throwing rocks at my car?

They hadn't discovered/invented bread stuffing mix?

does it really matter if the global changes are entirely a result of humanity? why shouldn't we try to treat our environment with better care? where is our responsibility to ensure a healthy planet for generations to come? EVERY action has a real consequence. to deny that is ignorant.

no, mankind is capable of learning, "beyond anything else."