CO2 and you. What do you know about how we measure it?

In an attempt to better understand this whole climate change issue, I've been doing a lot of research of my own. You see, I relay don't trust other peoples analysis of data, especially when I am perfectly capable of looking at the data myself. Now, don't get me wrong, I am no scienctist however, there are some things that even a third grader with a good grasp of basic numbers and decent reading skills could figure out when it comes to this whole debate. So, I went on a quest to find the raw data and see what it said to me. Here is what I found out...

First, do you all remember that chart that Al Gore showed in his movie "An inconvenient truth?" In case you don't, here it is:



So, I've looked at this chart many times and the every time I looked at it, there seemed to be something that was just not right. Throughout the Earths history the lines seemed to always match up until now. Now, the CO2 line has skyrocketed but the temperature line is still far below peak. Why is that? Simple. CO2 DOES NOT DRIVE TEMPERATURE! The fact is, temperature actually drives CO2. So, for the history of the Earth, as temperatures would go up, it would cause an increase in CO2 which is why the chart always seemed to match until humans came into the picture and we drove up CO2 ourselves. So, why does CO2 go up when the Earths temperature goes up? The answer is at the beach! Oceans hold massive amounts of CO2, when the oceans are cooler, they absorb CO2, but when the oceans temperatures get warmer, the oceans release CO2. Now it takes hundreds of years of warmer temperatures to heat the oceans to the point that they begin to release this CO2, which is why the data actually shows a lag of between 800 and 1,000 years between temperature rise and CO2rise. So, the Earths global temperatures go up and CO2 levels increase, lagging behind temperature by 800 - 1,000 years. Then the Earths temperatures begin to cool and CO2 decreases, lagging behind by 800 - 1,000 years. Bottom line, increases in CO2 DO NOT cause an increase in global temperatures. If it did, then the above chart would show current temperatures above all the previous peaks since CO2 is "higher than ever"

Now let's talk about something else. Data manipulation. The question is this: Is CO2 at an all time high right now? The answer might surprise you. You know that chart that I showed you above, the one that Al Gore used to show just how much greater CO2 is now than ever before? Have you ever wondered where he got that data? Well, I am going to show you exactly how he got that data and it is going to freak you out. Here is the raw chart Al Gore uses:



Okay seems pretty straight forward. Seems to show that CO2 has absolutely increased a great deal. BUT WAIT. It turns out that this chart is actually of CO2 data that has been collected using 2 different methods and from 2 different places.

The first part of the chart is made from ice core data collected in siple Antarctica. The second half of the chart is from air flask samples from Mauna Loa Hawaii. Humm, aren't there a lot of volcanoes in Hawaii that spew out CO2? At any rate, here are the charts before the full manipulation happens:



Notice how there is data missing between 1891 and 1950? Also notice how CO2 seems to drop between those dates? So what do they do obvucate the facts? Well, they just shift the chart 83 years masking the falling CO2 and when the use the data they try to make you belive it all came from the same location using the same collection methods. Does this make any sense? It does if they are trying to decieve you.

First why would they use 2 different types of collection methods? Knowing that direct air sampling is a more direct and precise measurement of CO2 in the air (as was done at Mauna Loa), did they just not have air flask data that went back far enough? Well, as it turns out, they did. So, why then would they not just use these samples? When you see the chart you will understand why:



So,now you see. If they showed you this data, you're going to say "Hey it looks like CO2 was actually higher than today back in the 1800's" and you know what? You would be correct. So, instead of showing this, they create their own charts by combining to different charts, all in an effort to make you believe what they are telling you.

Add to that the unreliability of ice core data and you have a real mess. Wait what was that? Did I just say that ice core data is unreliable? YES I DID? Here let me allow the smart guys to explain it by quoting them. I will also link directly to where you can find the quote for yourselves.

"The air occluded in ice sheets and glaciers has, in general, a younger age (defined as the time after its isolation from the atmosphere) than the surrounding ice matrix because snow is first transformed into open porous firn, in which the air can exchange with the atmosphere. Only at a certain depth (firn-ice transition) the pores are pinched off and the air is definitely isolated from the atmosphere. The firn-ice transition depth is at around 70 m under present climatic conditions at Summit, central Greenland. The air at this depth is roughly 10 years old due to diffusive mixing, whereas the ice is about 220 years old. This results in an age difference between the air and the ice of 210 years. This difference depends on temperature and accumulation rate and did not thus not remain constant during the past." Here's the link
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1997/97JD01309.shtml

So, the bottom line is, don't just take what you hear at face value. Question and investigate for yourselves before you make up your mind. Heck you have almost all of the worlds knowledge at your finger tips SO USE IT.

Global Warming and the Polar Bears

Okay so there is a lot of talk about Global Warming and how it's going to destroy all of mankind but not before killing the poor defenseless polar bear. Okay let's get some things straight about the Polar Bear. 1st, it is not poor and defenseless point of fact, if you were to run across a Polar Bear, it would probably disembowel you and have you for dinner. Okay I know that is just their nature and it's not their fault, and I agree. I just think that most of the world thinks of Polar Bears as some cute and cuddly creature that sits up on a snow bank sipping on its coke.
Recently we made one of the biggest boneheaded moves in the history of boneheaded moves. We decided that we should list the Polar Bear as an "threatened species" animal due to global warming. First, if you are going to list a species as a"threatened species" shouldn't the species numbers actually be going down? I mean, in 1972 there were only about 5,000 Polar Bears remaining. Now, there are over 25,000. So, their numbers have actually increased by 5 fold.
Here is something else to consider. The ice core record shows us that there were periods in the earths history when it was MUCH warmer than today. In fact, the scientist all agree that there were indeed times in the Earths history when there was no snow on the polar ice caps. The most recent and deepest ice core samples to date actually have plant matter in them (must be land under that ice). So, if there was a time in our history when there was no ice on the polar ice caps, did it kill off the Polar Bear? Of course not. How can I be so sure? BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL WITH US TODAY!!


Now, the media and it's supporters on the left would love it if we would all just believe that the Ice at the Polar Ice Caps is thinner than it has ever been.
Of course, in order to do that, we would have to remove some facts from the history books. One fact comes to mind immediately for instance, a name the media would love for global warming alarmists not to know is Roald Amundsen,a Norwegian explorer who successfully navigated the Northwest Passage on August 26, 1905 (h/t Walt Bennett, Jr.):

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this Passage was clear enough of ice for a wooden sailboat, with a crew of seven, to successfully navigate it more than 100 years ago. How many times in the history of the planet do you think a similar - or even more ice-free - condition existed in this area?
Not that the media cares, but this Passage was also conquered several times in the 1940s (emphasis added):



Built for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Force to serve as a supply ship for isolated, far-flung Arctic RCMP detachments, St. Roch was also designed to serve when frozen in for the winter, as a floating detachment, with its constables mounting dog sled patrols from the ship. Between 1929 and 1939 St. Roch made three voyages to the Arctic. Between 1940 and 1942 St. Roch navigated the Northwest Passage, arriving in Halifax harbor on October 11, 1942. St. Roch was the second ship to make the passage, and the first to travel the passage from west to east. In 1944, St. Roch returned to Vancouver via the more northerly route of the Northwest Passage, making her run in 86 days. The epic voyages of St. Roch demonstrated Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic during the difficult wartime years, and extended Canadian control over its vast northern territories.

Let's get real people, if we have any effect on the global climate, it is insignificant at best. The weather on this planet has done one thing consistently and this CHANGE. There is a old saying that says, "if you don't like the weather, just wait"

Indiana Jones

Okay so, this past Saturday,I took the family to see latest Indiana Jones movie which all the reviews said was just okay but not great. Well, I hate to argue with the "Experts" but they don't know JACK about what makes a good movie. Man this movie was FANTASTIC!! It was just as good as the first and way better than the third. Harrison Ford has not lost a step. The critics said that this movie delivers but just barely and I say that they are full crap. They say that it is just good enough to leave you wanting more and I say yeah you want more but only because this one was so good.
After reading the reviews, I went into the movie expecting it to be predictable and just good enough to say that it did not totally suck. I was happily surprised. This movie had all the fun, drama, excitement and laughs of the first 3 but was even more visually stunning. Bottom line, the critics suck and were wrong again!!

Reed Gold Mine

On Saturday, I took the family to Reed Gold Mine in Midland, NC. Reed mine is the site of the first gold find in the United States. So, they have a pretty informative movie you can watch, we did and it was pretty good. Just before the movie, we walked around the the museum they have there and it was really nice and very informative. after the movie, they took us on a tour of the mine which was not only informative but fun as well.
Everything up to this point is 100% free which is really nice. Next you have an opportunity to buy a ticket to pan for gold. you can buy a ticket for $2 which gets you pan of ore down by the panning troths. They give you the pan of ore and you start panning it down looking for gold. They say that you about 1 in 5 pans and we go lucky, or I should say my 14 year old son got lucky, and found a small piece of gold. I've never seen someone so excited. Needless to say we had a great time.