Raving Conservative


Monday, November 21, 2005

6,000 Years of Global Warming

Though am passionate about environmental concerns, it was a posting by
  • Sycorax
  • that got me off my duff, or rather on my duff since this on the computer, to speak up about global warming.

    Misinformed eco-activists have been screeching about global warming for a couple of decades now. Before that they were all bent out of shape about global cooling. What they are apparently ignorant of, at least I hope their ignorant since the alternative is evilly deceitful, is that we have been experiencing global warming for about the last 6,000 years.

    That’s right folks. Long before man had the ability to “destroy the environment by spewing tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere” this little blue ball of a planet has been getting steadily warmer. At times we have experienced short periods of global cooling, only to have it replaced with the current warming trend.

    This said, global warming is a given, the question, however is; is it really our fault, and if so how much of it is? In answer to the first part, 6,000 years of global warming would seem to indicate that the answer is a resounding “No!” In answer to the second part, we have no way to know how much warming can truly be attributed to human activity even if we did know for sure.

    Here are a few global warming facts:

    1- Many of the temperature readings that are used to show global warming are taken in urban areas that do show as much as a 10 degree rise in temperature over the last 200 years. However, outside of these areas the average temperatures have remained almost completely stable, with some even dropping.

    2- The Antarctic ice is actually thicker now than it was even just s few decades ago, and is still getting thicker. The ice shelf on the fringe has broken off large icebergs, yet even with these losses there is more total ice every year.

    3- All studies done within proper scientific methods and ethics show zero net rise in ocean levels despite the supposed doom of the melting icecaps and glaciers. Wait, Antarctica is getting more ice, so that means it’s not melting away. I forgot that little detail.

    4- While some glaciers ARE receding, others, nearly an equal number, are advancing. The result is a miniscule net loss of total glacier ice in the last 200 years.

    5- There really is more carbon dioxide in the air now then there was 200 years ago. However, since the Earth has a magnificent ability to adapt itself, it has compensated with more photosynthetic organisms, not additional ones, but a greater biomass of existing ones. This is why the increase in carbon dioxide levels has been exceedingly slow, much slower than should have happened without additional biomass of plants and algae. Interestingly, this same additional food for plants has actually benefited the food chain by increasing the abundance of producers.

    6- The recent warmer seas in the Gulf of Mexico are part of a natural 40-60 year cycle. In another 40-60 years the seas will be cool again and the hurricanes will be infrequent and weak.

    7- Warmer air means more evaporation of seawater. More evaporation of seawater means more rain and snow in something like 80% of the world. Last I knew we were having concerns about water shortages and droughts. It would seem that increased rains would solve this problem for everyone. Woe be it to you if you were foolish enough to build your house on a flood plain.

    So, it seems global warming is a more complex issue than “greenhouse gas emissions are bad and will destroy the world”. Even so, continuing in a 6,000 year tend leaves me strangely unconcerned. The globe got warmer without our greenhouse gasses, it’s still getting warmer, and it will continue to get warmer until the next ice age. Personally, I find a new Ice age far more frightening than global warming because it would make a great deal of the world virtually uninhabitable, bury vast tracts of productive farmland under massive glaciers, and condense some 6,000,000,000 people into an area roughly half to four-sevenths that which we now occupy. This is a recipe for starvation, war, and pestilence on a previously unheard of scale.

    Of course, the eco-activists need a boogeyman like global warming to keep bilking people out of their money and justify their existence. Don’t expect them to listen to either reason or science.


    • oh, come on, daniel! next thing i know, you'll be saying peta is a sham... ;-)

      By Blogger Libby, at 2:25 PM  

    • My stance on global warming:

      1. It is a complex issue, like oh-so-many other things.

      2. It should be taken seriously, but discussed and handled realistically.

      3. While important, there are bigger fish to fry in all regards: social, political, and environmental.

      By Blogger Son of Lilith, at 3:38 PM  

    • One thing I should point out, daniel, is that as the oceans cool, which they are doing, this allows the release of MORE CO2 into the atmosphere, which, contrary to the scare tactics of the enviro-nuts,actually leads to a COOLING of the earth's surface and atmospheric temperatures. This is done because the increased CO2 blocks out more of the sun's longer UV rays, which are responsible for creating warmth on earth.In effect,we are heading for a mini ice-age. Not on the scale of 10,000 years ago,just overall cooler temps. And BTW, H2O is the primary generator of the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere and even your little backyard greenhouse. I don't why the MSM hasn't pointed this out.(nevermind, stupid question)

      By Blogger Justthinkin, at 6:46 PM  

    • You have just taught me something there. Very cool info.

      By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 9:25 PM  

    • I've read what Justthinkin posted somewhere else, just don't remember where right now. (It's late.)

      Yes, Justthinkin, it's pretty obvious why the BSMSM doesn't point this out, isn't it? :)

      By Blogger Gayle, at 9:35 PM  

    • It has appeared to me a lot of the "scientists" pushing global warming draw some or all of their support from the UN. Then we come up with things being proposed like the Kyota treaty to stop the supposed global warming and hand a huge chunk of the soverienty of it's member nations over to the UN. Could most of the ballyhoo about this subject simply be a play by the UN to take another step toward being the world government?

      The idea scares me since only about 40% of that august body is made up of nations with any semblance of a democratic government. That puts the votes in the control of the 60% that are totalitarian governments.

      Yeah, I want to turn over control of America to governing body (not).

      By Blogger Fish, at 5:10 AM  

    • The US in the UN is like Gulliver among the Lilliputians. As long as we are fully awake and aware of what's going we're fine, but the instant we doze off all of those puny little nothings filling up so much of the UN will start tossing ropes around us until we are thoroughly tied down and subjugated.

      By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 6:23 AM  

    • There is no proof of global warming, just THEORY. THEORY is not fact. And as a THEORY, sooner or later another THEORY advances to replace the previous THEORY, proving that all THEORIES are bogus.

      Sign in Cornell U. Equine Research Lab--

      "If the results do not support your preconceived theory, MANIPULATE THE DATA".

      Been there, seen that.

      Which brings us to paid blog shills:

      The liberals are hiring. They're placing adds in Craigslist, etc.



      By Blogger Phantom_Driver, USNR, Ret., at 7:01 AM  

    • I remember when I was in grade-school it was global cooling and the mini-ice age I was supposed to be scared of.

      By Blogger The Conservative UAW Guy, at 3:42 AM  

    • 1977 was one of the cooler years. We even had snow here in Florida. Global cooling was the concern.

      I'm no scientist, but the Earth gets warmer and cooler in cycles, just like with the number and intensity of Hurricanes. Listening to people like Barbara Streisand and the enviro wackos telling me to buy a hybrid car in order to avoid Hurricanes is pretty funny. But then again I get a good laugh out of much of liberalism.

      By Blogger Rick's Corner, at 6:33 PM  

    • When was the last ice age, Daniel?

      By Anonymous cjb, at 12:34 PM  

    • A big one, or a little one?

      By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 2:59 PM  

    • Well, I guess that depends on how one defines ‘big’ and ‘little’, but let’s define an ice age as whatever you were referring to when you mentioned ice ages in your post. When was the last glacial period that you consider to be an ice age?

      The reason I ask is because in the previous post on evolution, you describe yourself as a Bible literalist and a Young Earth Creationist. Normally, YEC adherents consider the Earth to be a mere 6,000 years old. However, you state in this post that the Earth has been warming for the past 6,000 years, which would mean that an ice age could not have occurred during that time so it must have occurred prior to 6,000 years ago. How can this be if the Earth is only 6,000 years old? How do you reconcile this with your YEC stance or is it that you aren’t really a Young Earther or a Bible literalist?

      I await your ‘Dismembering Evolution’ series with interest, but before you embark on that series, you should also define what you mean by evolution. Evolution is normally defined as ‘descent with modification’ and pertains to living organisms. Evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life or the origin of the universe. If you are going to attack these theories as well in your upcoming series (as I suspect you will), then you should probably name your series ‘Dismembering Science’ because you will be attacking the scientific method generally, rather than simply the theory of evolution.

      By Anonymous cjb, at 6:12 PM  

    • CJB,

      Ahh, I see you interest here.

      Allow me to elucidate my position for you.

      Using Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity it has been shown that, due to the changes in the flow of time, the 8 billion or so years since the creation of the universeis more like 6 days in the modern timeline. The equasions are far beyond my ken, but this is physics, not theology. So it is likely that a literal 6 day creation and the big bang are one and the same. When I refer to time I am naturally referring to time in its current speed. Therefore, expect me to speak in terms of thousands, millions, or billions of years as measured by science. However, due to the oneness of the six day creation and the big bang there is always the unspoken issue of all of these billions years of history being squashed into six days ubtil time time settled into it's modern speed.

      For more clarification on this subject I suggest reading "Genesis and The Big Bang" by Gerald Schroeder. He's also the physicist who figured out this whole time flux thing.

      As it is, I have no intention of atacking science itself. I intend to use science to expose the fallacy of evolution. Much of the science supporting evolution is actually fatally flawed, and evolution itself was first put forth without following any of the Scientific Method. Actually, the science has already been done. I'm just researching it so I can write about it.

      I look forward to your input when I publish my series.

      By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 10:29 AM  

    • “Using Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity…
      For more clarification on this subject I suggest reading "Genesis and The Big Bang" by Gerald Schroeder.”

      Nice try, Daniel. Perhaps you should read Mark Perakh’s critique of Schroeder’s works.


      “As it is, I have no intention of atacking science itself. I intend to use science to expose the fallacy of evolution.”

      We shall see.

      “I'm just researching it so I can write about it. I look forward to your input when I publish my series.”

      Part of this research should involve reading some books other than ‘Icons of Evolution’. How about ‘Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea’ by Carl Zimmer, a popular science writer or there’s ‘An Introduction to Biological Evolution’ by Kenneth Kardong, it’s a textbook, but you need to know the hard facts behind evolution if you are going to debate them. I’d also suggest that you avoid using any of the hackneyed creationist canards to be found at the TalkOrigins web site: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/, if you want to avoid boring your readers. Otherwise, I’ll simply be pointing you there as a rebuttal to any creationist claims you may make.

      By Anonymous cjb, at 12:14 AM  

    • Ah, but I, like you and pretty much everyone in the us, have been indoctinated evolution from childhood. I knew about evolution before I knew about creation, and I come from a religious family. I know evolution very well.

      "Icons of Evolution" is only one source I have been using. It is however, an excellent one since many of the problems with evolution that I have read and heard elswhere are summarized in it. Had it been my only source I would have written my series by now.

      As for Schroeders work being rebutted, there is such a rebuttal for everything in science. There is always a dissenter where science and math are involved, usually by someone who either ideologicaly driven, or is simply trying to make a name for himself by tearing down the work of a great scientist. Even Einsten recieved such criticism.

      By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 6:09 AM  

    • “As for Schroeders work being rebutted, there is such a rebuttal for everything in science.”

      Nevertheless, you probably should still read it for the sake of balance.

      For the rest, I’ll wait until you start your series.

      By Anonymous cjb, at 10:07 PM  

    Post a Comment

    << Home

    Listed on BlogShares