Temperature vs. Carbon Dioxide Connection

It has been widely reported and it seems generally accepted that there is a relationship between “global warming” and the level of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. Let’s take a quick peek at how they figured this. Scientists have extracted ice core samples from Antarctica where the ice has probably been undisturbed and has been steadily increasing in depth for thousands of years. They have guessed at what rate the ice thickness increases (make no mistake, pretty much everything “scientific” about our history is nothing more than a wild guess). They work their way down the core sample, guessing how long ago each layer of ice was deposited as snow and gradually compacted. Then they can basically melt a particular section and measure how much of what gases are trapped in the air bubbles, theoretically now having a sample of the Earth’s atmosphere from a particular point in history.

Now they plot the atmospheric concentrations of things like CO2 laid out next to the global temperature of the time and they find that when there was more CO2 in the air that the planet was warmer. Hence, the increase in CO2 causes global warming. It is lovely use of Logic 055. But wait, we are currently measuring an increase in global temperatures and we as humans are dumping CO2 into the air through the burning of carbon products in our cars and power plants. Therefore, we must be causing global warming. And that’s all the evidence that was needed to start the global warming crisis.

Let me try and toss in an analogy at this point. I like analogies, expect them often. So, a thousand years ago, hardly a blink in the history of our planet, scientists knew that the Earth was flat, it was at the center of the universe, and everything revolved around us. Of course we now know that they were wrong. History is filled with your ordinary scientist who was wrong about most every theory that they claimed. Only a few notable exceptions exist, and we still know those names today including such thinkers as Newton and Einstein. All those who were wrong are not remembered by history.

The very first temperature measuring device, which we know as a thermometer, was invented about 400 years ago. It took another 100 years before an accurate handheld version was invented. After that, it was quite some time before thermometers were available and in use, primarily with scientists. The accurate measuring and recording of weather and air temperatures has only been accomplished on a world-wide scale within the last 100 years. Prior to this, global temperatures are nothing more than a wild guess. Yet, today’s global warming activists constantly cite statistics of global temperatures over the last 10,000 years. People accept these figures as fact, when there is nothing factual about it. The truth is we have no clue at all what the actual global mean temperature was 500 years ago, let alone 10,000. Therefore, any reference made to a specific global temperature more than 100 years ago is seriously in question, especially when they are talking about changes of less than one degree in the current global mean temperature. That kind of accuracy simply did not exist over 100 years ago.

Now back to that ice core. They have extracted their atmospheric gas data and published their findings. Of course these figures are taken as factual. But we must again challenge the accuracy of the results. Is there no room for error in the timeline of an ice core sample? Of course there is. There is no way of knowing what the actual snowfall and ice compaction rates have been in Antarctica beyond the last few decades when we have had actual observations. And if you think the trends developed over the last few decades is enough to accurately calculate the timeline back to 10,000 years, then you’re among the crowd who believed without a doubt that the Earth was flat. After all, it certainly looks flat from where you’re standing right now, doesn’t it?

Is there any chance that the air over Antarctica was not an accurate sample of the global atmospheric conditions of any given time? Of course. Is there any chance that the process of compaction of the snow into ice could have altered the gases contained within? Yes, without a doubt. There is no way that the data used to claim global warming is definitive. It is nothing more than a guess based on partial and questionable evidence.

Now, let’s assume for a moment that the trend of increased temperatures and increased CO2 is at least vaguely accurate. Now we move on to the biggest question, but one that is never addressed. Which came first, temperature or CO2? It’s like the chicken or the egg debate. The global warming theory claims that increasing CO2 caused increasing temperature. What if it was the other way around? What if the global mean temperature change was occurring due to other reasons and the CO2 levels changed as a result of that? Now wouldn’t that be an inconvenient truth?

Everything we currently know about natural cycles is that they are boom and bust. This is clearly evident in observable short cycles, such as the population of rabbits in the wild. The population increases significantly over a period of a few years, then suddenly drops off to low level in a short period of time, after which the process starts over again. This cycle starts out very slowly, gains momentum, until the population boom repeats at the end with drastic results every time. The best working theory has to do with food supply in that as long as the food holds out, the population breeds at a high rate. Over time the population becomes larger than the food supply and begins to quickly die off. There is a recovery period for the food supply and the cycle repeats itself. Since this case has been so well documented and has been seen in many animal species, it is a pretty good working theory. We must, however, admit that it is just a theory and even something so well observed may have other influences that we don’t yet understand.

Now take that to the global level. Is it possible that there is a global boom and bust cycle that has an effect on temperature and atmospheric gas concentrations? And why shouldn’t there be? We’ve seen it elsewhere and we have some pretty good evidence that the Earth has cycled through what we call ice ages many times. That seems to indicate that there are large swings in global temperature over time. Would you like to see a real example of extreme temperature changes? Then just do some simple comparisons of summer vs. winter and day vs. night temperatures at various places around the planet. One of my favorites is a little city in Alaska called Fairbanks. Winter temperatures regularly dip down to 50 below zero, while the summer time is usually into the 80 above range. That is a temperature shift of 130 degrees simply by changing the angle of the sun and the amount of time each day the area is exposed to it. You can try this measurement at your house, just walk out and check the temperature yourself during the afternoon heat, then repeat that measurement again in the early morning hours before the sun reappears.

There is no question that our air temperature has everything to do with the heat from the sun. Now, the question is whether the minute changes being claimed are the result of such a minuscule change in CO2 levels, or is it perhaps a change in the source itself? The global warming activists are quick to dismiss any thought that it may be the sun that is responsible for the recently observed temperature changes. But is it truly possible that a giant ball of hydrogen and helium in a constant state of nuclear fusion reaction could be the source for global temperature shifts? Do you think there is a chance that the radiation output of the sun goes through slight variations over time? I think we have already proven that slight changes in the sun’s exposure to the Earth result in huge temperature swings throughout the year, so why wouldn’t a small, but steady change in the sun result in a small change in the mean temperature of our planet? Why won’t the other side even consider this? Well because there is nothing we could do about it, that’s why.

They are quick to point out that sun spot observations over several hundred years show no significant changes in the sun’s activity. Well, I’m sure that sun spot observations under Galileo were just as accurate a measurement as they are today! Truth is that we have very limited knowledge and observation data of the sun. NASA and other scientists have only been actively engaged in solar science for a few short decades of our history and everything we claim to know about the sun is nothing more than a guess. Recall that scientists used to guess that the Earth was flat and the sun revolved around us. Even today, scientists are being proven wrong about their guesses all the time.

So, let’s say that the sun goes through its own boom and bust cycles with minimal changes in radiation output over hundreds of years. Like the rabbits, perhaps some phases occur over shorter periods while recovery takes much longer. Let’s try this theory on for size. The uncontrolled nuclear reaction gradually increases in intensity over perhaps several hundred or even thousand years. At a point, the output begins to increase at a faster rate, kind of like a fire will increase in intensity rapidly as all the fuel is preheated to the ignition point. As this increase reaches a peak, the available fuel is consumed faster than it becomes available and the fire, or in this case nuclear reaction, slows down rather suddenly at the end and the output drops off. Then the process starts over again with a steady increase as the fuel level is now back in line with the reaction rate. Perhaps the swing of this cycle is so small that it is difficult to observe given our limited means of collecting data on the sun and the impossibility of collecting any data at all on what is happening within the sun itself.

Since we have real life evidence of this cycle in so many parts of nature, is it not possible that this is exactly what is occurring in our own little solar system on a grander scale? Perhaps we are actually on the boom cycle that occurs before every major ice age our planet has seen? And just perhaps, this is a completely natural occurrence that really has absolutely nothing to do with human influence. There are hoards of scientists who agree that this is a natural cycle, but they are conveniently not the ones that are interviewed by the media and the global warming activists.

So, let me take one last visit to that ice core sample. The claim being made is that the human caused production of CO2 is causing global warming. They say that there is clear evidence between historical global temperature and the CO2 levels. Since we are producing CO2 by burning coal and petroleum products, we must be the cause of the increase in CO2. Sounds definitive to the average schmuck on the street, who simply buys in to whatever CNN tells them to think. But there is a huge fallacy contained in the CO2 argument that no one appears to be asking. If it is in fact an increase in CO2 which causes a global temperature shift, then where did that CO2 come from during all those historical temperature changes? Human industrial production of CO2 has been in place for less than a century. So what really caused the reported increases in CO2 that they claim is evident in thousands of year’s worth of Antarctic ice? It sure wasn’t us.

So what are the possible natural causes? Well, for the latter portion of the 20th Century humans have been stopping such natural processes as wildfire. Before that, fires burned out of control for weeks and months on end, destroying vast expanses of forest and grassland, dumping “tons” of carbon emissions into the atmosphere and reducing the number of plants available to scrub CO2 from the air. Fires are more likely when the temperatures are higher and the vegetation dries out. Volcanic activity also contributes enormous amounts of CO2 and particulate emissions into the atmosphere. Volcanic activity has its own boom and bust cycles, which may contribute to this effect if they are by chance in alignment at certain points in our history. Perhaps the cycle starts with an increasing temperature, which dries out the wilderness, which causes more catastrophic fires, which may by chance or through methods we don’t yet understand increase atmospheric CO2 levels. Perhaps this cycle coincides with other natural cycles, such as volcanic activity, at certain points and we have a drastic temperature change along with a measurable increase in CO2. Roll the dice often enough and you’re bound to get sevens. So just maybe it is actually the naturally increasing temperature itself which has recorded these atmospheric changes in the ice cores, not the other way around. The point is we really don’t know for sure.

For all these short-sighted egocentric humans to come to such an abrupt conclusion that the rather small climate changes we have seen over the last couple decades is being caused by our own presence on this planet, well it is simply astounding to see how this idea is being propagated as fact without any real evidence. Based on the last 40 years of environmental activism, I have to ask, “Show me the money”. Who is getting paid for the global warming movement? Well, just like environmental movements before this one, it is those same “non-profit” organizations that are gaining members and collecting their “defense funds” from people who buy into the crisis out of fear. The leaders of these organizations and the so-called scientists that they employ are making a living off of propagating the man-made global warming crisis. It is in their best interest to scare you into submission and get you to send them all the money they need to fight for the planet. It is all smoke and mirrors. You are being duped. Wake up, do some research, and stop sending these people your hard-earned cash.