Defending the Truth

This chart shows the relationship between CO2 and temperature. The less CO2 there is, the more difference it'll make on the climate of the planet. Fluxuation in CO2 is related to fluxation in temperature. It has been fluxuating for quite some time, and we are in a warm front on the chart (but not the hottest). Its not a pefect relationship, but it is obvious. There has been a massive rise in temperature since the end of the ice age (20, 000 Ky). The chart time period is large, so its impossible tot ell what is happening with the temperature at this very moment. However, there is an obvious spike in CO2 laying right on top of the very last line (line 0). That combined with the previously obvious relationship would suggest that humans are a part of the current global heat trend. The spike at the very end in CO2 levels, is far steeper than that of any other time period. There is no chance at all, that this spike was caused by something natural. And since this data also proves relationship between CO2 and temperaturee, this graph is indesputable proof that human active has or at least will lead to global temperature changes with in the future.

This graph gives me a clear position on this issue. Those evil "left wing" scientists take this stance based on research, while political pundits convince the dopes of America not to believe them. Its quite rediculous how Americans (especially the youth) trust political pundits over scientists on this issue. The reason that the human endused global warming has not been believed in the US, is because the truth would go against their political philosophy. People who deny global warming, do so on political grounds.

Although it is true that there are many 'scientists' that disagree with the consensus that global warming is related to human activity, there is a major problem when it comes to their viewpoint being a valid point of view. This scientists are POLITICAL SCIENTISTS. Political scientists, are scientists enformed about politics, NOT the issue about global warming, which is a meteoroligical issue, not a political one. A scientist educated in politics does not qualify for making a valid arguement against the informed "left's" view of global warming. This is not a political issue, this is a scientific issue. Those who are educated about politics are not qualified to make a stance on global warming, since they are not informed in climatic process.

As for those meteoroligists that say that there is a hype involving global warming... They were all state ran meteoroligists, meaning that they are also POLITICAL SCIENTISTS, and since they recieved an education in such, they are far less knowledgable in the issue of global warming, as they also put an effort to learning about politics. Thus, half their knowledge is political while the other half is scientific, meaning they are only half as qualified as those who examined these antartic ice cores, confirming man made global warming. In fact, that graph proves that human activity at least will have an effect on global climate, and right now it seems like it already has.

For those of you who say I'm just a leftist moron, read this. I am a University major in EARTH SCIENCES. Global Warming is an Earth Science. I am more knowledgable about this issue than all those right-wing political propagandists on the Corporate Media. The guy who hosts that could not out debate me on this issue, since I am clearly more knowledgable on it. I am not knowledgable on Kyoto per say, but to deny global warming is in fact, as rediculous as denying the holocaust. Sorry its true. I'm not saying they are morally equivical, but they are intellectually equivical.

I would actually like to now continue on to why it is essential to control carbon emissions.



For those of you who do not know what this is, this is the carbon cycle. Carbon (CO2 when in atmosphere) does not stay in one place. When CO2 is injected into the atmosphere, it will eventially be deposited, either by photosynthesis, or with in the oceans. This carbon process brings up a new issue involving the dangers of CO2....

When CO2 deposits as carbon, it is a pollutant. Due to land usage, the amount of CO2 absorbed by photosynthesis is decreased, meaning that more will be deposited into the oceans. Since we are dumping more CO2 into the atmosphere, we are causing a rise in the carbon content in our oceans. Here is the terrible truth, this is in fact even WORSE than global temperature rises. When CO2 mixes with water, it forms a toxic dissolving chemical called Carbonic Acid.

Carbonic acid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There has been recently been a loss of life with in our oceans. Do to the increased acidity in our water, sea life is dying. Sea life (fishing) is essential for the world economy, especially for island countries such as Japan which are reliant on the sea for food supply.

When more CO2 is dumped into the atmosphere, it eventually falls into the ocean, raising its acidity. When PH drops, it'll damage ocean environments, which would eventually cause global catastraphy. Afterall, the oceans drive both our weather, and our biota. If our oceans, if our water contains a venomously high acidic content, it would be a catastrophy.

Oh, as for weather.... Moisture content that falls from rain, forming our fresh water rivers and lakes, is often obsorbed from the oceans by the sun. If the oceans are acidic, the rain will also be acidic, making our rivers and lakes acidic as well. Just think what would happen to the biota of this planet, if the water is too acidic for plants and animals. The mass death would completely devestate the world, that including the human race.

PS: It can't be because of volcanoes, since there were bigger eruptions with in the past 400,000 years (one during human history). Also, these environmental processes also have a cooling effect by blocking out the sun.

Excellent post.

I have to say I am always astonished by the lack of awareness expressed so often dogmaticly by so many right-wing sympathetic posters. They just don't get it.

Keep up the fight for a better world, Varuna.

Thank you, and you too!

The fact is it's not right-wing sympathetic posters or anyone else, it's that the media is screwing everyone! Be a ......... FREE THINKER! Get with the "fair & balanced crowd"
http://clips.mediamatters.org/static...e-20050428.jpg

chart all u want FACT is we r just streaching out earth and her attmosphere we dont need to foreal stop being warm via coal oil gas etc to save earth it is an evelution that is taking place the way to use thes heats is to try to buy back the filtering systems that FORD tossed in as a bonus to MEXICO when we desided to go stupid and not filter corectly we could b smelting melting & pouring right here in the good ole usa safely with no polution

Great post Varuna, and welcome to the site.

Just to add, recent figures need to be taken into account also:


temp chart.jpg

That chart says that the warming could be a coincidence, but my original states otherwise!

Thanks for welcoming me!

A comprehensive post, but I disagree that the graph proves human activity will cause warming in the future. The general relationship that graph actually shows is that a warmer planet holds more co2. If co2 didn't cause any warming at all, that graph would still make sense.

The reason it is known that human activity will cause warming is because
a) we know the recent co2 spike is human caused beyond doubt,
and
b) the physics for why a co2 rise causes warming is also beyond doubt

Current evidence suggests that co2 and temperature are related in a positive feedback. A warmer world holds more co2, and more co2 causes a warmer world. The ice core record graph shows temperature rising about 10C from glacial to interglacial periods, while co2 only rises about 50% during the same period. The 4th IPCC report puts the warming effect from doubling (ie 100% increase) co2 as between 2C and 4.5C. Lower than can explain all the warming in the ice core record.

I think skeptics (or at least the reasonable ones) accept that co2 causes warming, but say it doesn't cause much warming. Problem is that the physics behind the 2C-4.5C per doubling range is complex and those ranges are the output of climate models. Obviously it's not possible to replicate a climate model in a discussion.

Combine the figures from the OP with the most recent records and the evidence is to much to ignore! Something needs to be done quickly!

temp chart.jpg