🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1144092864.318383.157620@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Fabrikant wrote:
> Several months ago, all media was shouting that the latest revelations
> from South Pole are so devastating that we are all about to die.
> Several headlines announced: "Never in the history of mankind was the
> level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere so high." So, I decided to
> check, how exactly high is the present level just to see, whether we
> are all about to suffocate ourselves.  I got copies of the scientific
> articles published in "Science" and started reading them.

Here's something to throw the monkey into the wrench: (Purposeful play on the old 
saying BTW) 

http://www.google.com/search?q=ice+free+antarctica+map

How many years did it take you to conclude that the Media is the
largest source of mis-information?

I guess sitting, rotting in Prison for multiple homicide gives you time
to think about all the stuff you took for granted.

In chi.general Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
: In article <1144092864.318383.157620@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Fabrikant wrote:
:> Several months ago, all media was shouting that the latest revelations
:> from South Pole are so devastating that we are all about to die.
:> Several headlines announced: "Never in the history of mankind was the
:> level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere so high." So, I decided to
:> check, how exactly high is the present level just to see, whether we
:> are all about to suffocate ourselves.  I got copies of the scientific
:> articles published in "Science" and started reading them.

: Here's something to throw the monkey into the wrench: (Purposeful play on the old 
: saying BTW) 

: http://www.google.com/search?q=ice+free+antarctica+map

I assume your refering to http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.htm?

I would think it's related to the "Medieval Warm Period" 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period).

Thats when the Vikings inhabited Greenland and were farming there... the claim
was that when they settled there around 900 southern Greenland was nice... not
so by the time they dissappeared around 1400 however...

The mini-ice age came soon afterwards.  Thats when the trees that would yield
the great violins would grow...  

-- 
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
       http://www.chicagopaddling.org   http://www.chicagofishing.org
 (A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

In article <e0s8g2$lpk$1@e250.ripco.com>, Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:

>: Here's something to throw the monkey into the wrench: (Purposeful play on the old 
>: saying BTW) 
> 
>: http://www.google.com/search?q=ice+free+antarctica+map
 
> I assume your refering to http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.htm?

Yes those maps. 
 
> I would think it's related to the "Medieval Warm Period" 
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period).

Um no. This map and the others like it which show varried level of detail 
of antarctica without ice were based on ancient sources. Antarctica was not 
offically discovered until the early 19th century. 

> Thats when the Vikings inhabited Greenland and were farming there... the claim
> was that when they settled there around 900 southern Greenland was nice... not
> so by the time they dissappeared around 1400 however...

According to conventional theory, antarctica has been covered with ice 
for the last several million years. Since long before humans existed. 
Modern ice-free maps of antarctica came from the use of radar to map it. 
First done in the 1950s. 

However also according to conventional theory, no human ever made it to 
antarctica before the early 19th century. 

Somebody has to be wrong somewhere. Especially since this map and others 
predate accurately knowing what antarica looked like without ice. And 
known in modern times before the knowledge to fake them existed. 

Fabrikant wrote:
> Guess, what is the present level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere:
> is it 1%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 50%?  None of the above.  Various sources give
> it at about one third of one percent (just for comparison, nitrogen is
> about 78% and oxygen is about 20% of atmosphere).

The statement is irrelevant - the level of CO2 in the atmosphere
relative to other gases doesn't imply anything about the significance
of the level of CO2 itself, unless you're saying something about
reactions between these constituents, which you are not. It's like
saying that arsenic is harmless because there's only 1 gram in a liter
of water.

> carbon dioxide is not a poison, it is what every living creature
> exhales and what every plant inhales, because it is absolutely
> necessary for photosynthesis.

The statement is irrelevant - for the reasons stated above and also
because the phenomena that are said to be harmful and triggered by the
rising CO2 levels, are not the inhalation/exhalation by every living
creature. It's somewhat like saying that water in gunpowder is harmless
bacause everybody is drinking so much of it.

> The media does bombard us with numbers, but only with those, which
> serve their dishonest goals: to create panic, because panic sells.  We

The MSM is innumerate, venal, and incompetent, but that doesn't imply
anything about the body of research about global warming.

> are told that each human exhales about 4 tons of carbon dioxide, which
> is 50 times the weight of average human being, so we feel like criminal
> polluters and fight with urges to stop breathing at all.

That is a good joke.

> heard our "objective" media telling us the whole story or at least
> mention that without carbon dioxide all life will stop, because all the
> plants will die.

Because it is irrelevant.

> periodicity of about 100,000 years. So, about 100,000 years ago, the
> carbon dioxide concentration was 0.3%, while now the maximum observed
> is 0.38%. Taking into consideration that there was no measurable
> industrial human activity 100,000 years ago, we should presume 0.3% of
> carbon dioxide has nothing to do with humans.  Even if the remaining
> 0.08% is due to humans, this means that if we stop all industrial
> activity, we can not go below 0.3%, so what is all hoopla about?

You asserting that the difference between 0.30 and 0.38 is
insignificant, which you are not qualified to say.

> There is one more detail: every data in the published graph presents
> not the carbon dioxide concentration at certain point in time, but
> rather average of 731 years.  Notwithstanding the present concentration
> of 0.38%, if we take the average of the past 731 years, I am sure, we
> will not get more than 0.3% concentration and the conclusion will be

This statement is internally contradictory.

> In addition, at least one of the articles states quite clearly that
> there is nothing abnormal in the present atmosphere.

And you're asserting that this is the one article that got it right.

> media would not quote this opinion back to you.  So, whenever the media
> is trying to scare the life out of you, read the original research and
> make your own conclusions.

You're asserting  that your audience and yourself are capable of
drawing valid conclusions from the original research. The mass media
may be imbeciles, but that doesn't imply that the audience is
scientifically literate.

In chi.general Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
: In article <e0s8g2$lpk$1@e250.ripco.com>, Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:

:>: Here's something to throw the monkey into the wrench: (Purposeful play on the old 
:>: saying BTW) 
:> 
:>: http://www.google.com/search?q=ice+free+antarctica+map
:  
:> I assume your refering to http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.htm?

: Yes those maps. 
:  
:> I would think it's related to the "Medieval Warm Period" 
:> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period).

: Um no. This map and the others like it which show varried level of detail 
: of antarctica without ice were based on ancient sources. Antarctica was not 
: offically discovered until the early 19th century. 

:> Thats when the Vikings inhabited Greenland and were farming there... the claim
:> was that when they settled there around 900 southern Greenland was nice... not
:> so by the time they dissappeared around 1400 however...

: According to conventional theory, antarctica has been covered with ice 
: for the last several million years. Since long before humans existed. 
: Modern ice-free maps of antarctica came from the use of radar to map it. 
: First done in the 1950s. 

: However also according to conventional theory, no human ever made it to 
: antarctica before the early 19th century. 

Yea yea... and Hennepin "discovered" the Falls of St. Anthony when the Sioux
took him there on a annual hunting trip...

: Somebody has to be wrong somewhere. Especially since this map and others 
: predate accurately knowing what antarica looked like without ice. And 
: known in modern times before the knowledge to fake them existed. 

The maps probably show general features... and probably a little wobble here 
or there in the earth controls who is warm and dry at any one time... as
Greenland warmed, it might have been colder down there, but during the later 
mini ice age in Europe, it was probably pretty warm down there... and people
had been passing there for centuries trading with the far east...

-- 
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
       http://www.chicagopaddling.org   http://www.chicagofishing.org
 (A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)