Remember when the Exxon Valdez spilled in Alaska? They said it would take decades for the ecosystem to come back to normal.
The only problem is, when they went back in just a few years it seems that the ocean had already taken care of the problem. Instead of decades it only took a few years for the ocean to cleanse itself of the petro problem.
Just this week we see where scientists have found, in the deepest part of the oceans, animal life that actually feeds on petroleum that oozes out of the ocean floor.
Seems like God has everything figured out to balance out the system.
It's not quite a "balance" there at the ocean depths, not entirely anyway. A lot, perhaps most of that petroleum is in in closed cycle at very great depths. The petroleum on the continents used be green and living organic matter that was breathing CO2 and converting it into oxygen.
It is an "imbalance" in my opinion, to leave that petroleum and its carbon locked away in the rocks. We must release the carbon from petroleum, coal and natural gas in order to return it to the biosphere.
What if the "reason" we are here is just for this purpose? What if we're supposed to be burning fossil fuels in order to prepare the planet for a great renewal?
Have you been following the news this week? the most acclaimed and credible researchers on the planet (the guys that run the IPCC) just got discredited... LAST FRIDAY.
Can you provide the information on this, I'd like to read it.
Quote:
but lets play your game.
What if I am wrong and CO2 is a real green house gas.
Then things arent that bad. The earth has seen CO2 levels around 7000 ppm (right now it is about 380ish PPM) with temperatures no more than 8 to 10 degrees cooler.
during those periods, the earth had its greatest diversity of flora and fauna.
If that happned and the polar regions warmed, and the ice caps melted signifantly (even worst case) then the vast areas of Siberia, Canada and Alaska would all the sudden be freed up for the production of food.
Warming of that nature would cause sea level rise that would flood out about 500 million people but would make 1/5 of the earths land mass more livable.
So even IF CO2 is a serious green house gas, there is nothing to worry about.
Ferd, what do you believe the economic impact would be as a result of 500 million people having to flee global flooding?
That was a pretend fake, what if, that would take 300 years to happen.
And it cant happen because CO2 doesnt continue to cause warming after around 900ppm because its impact is logrithmic.
and in that pretend fake scenario, the economic impact of 500M displaced people would be off set by the opening of millions of square miles of land for development and crop growing.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
The author visits the various MMTS weather collection sites and has others do the same. They submit photos of the sites where the "warming" data has been collected. It seems that a very high number of the MMTS stations are located in close proximity to air conditioning units.
While the AC is keeping the interior of a building cool, it is blowing out warm and even hot air outside creating a micro-climate in the rear of the building or wherever the AC's exhaust is blown. In other cases the MMTS units are located next to parked and idling vehicles, on or near concrete and asphalt pavement, and often in direct sunlight.
The data is only going to be as good as the data stations. Having large numbers of data collecting stations installed improperly will skew the data badly.
Geophysicist Glenn Morton has found that using data from just the month of October will change the whole "global warming" paradigm. And why October? Because that's when the AC is turned off and furnaces have not yet kicked on. These devices' exhaust are frequently located right next to a MMTS weather station.
This image from NOAA shows that the worst of the "global warming" appears to be taking place in Siberia. The larger red dots are intended to highlight the areas with the most warming.
Going back for even more data - back another 147 years to 1814, gives us a completely different picture.
Was that "warming" period in the 1800's "bad" for Siberia? Did it lead to terrible cataclysmic environmental catastrophes? We aren't even back up to those levels of warming yet. And notice how the NOAA image was careful to "start" their reporting period at the bottom of the "cooling" trough at about 1960.
All of you who believe in global warming, could you send some of it my way please? In my geographical position the weather patterns are not supporting the concept of global warming this winter!! Au, contraire, its COLD here!!!!!
Linear Mode
