element14 Community
element14 Community
    Register Log In
  • Site
  • Search
  • Log In Register
  • Community Hub
    Community Hub
    • What's New on element14
    • Feedback and Support
    • Benefits of Membership
    • Personal Blogs
    • Members Area
    • Achievement Levels
  • Learn
    Learn
    • Ask an Expert
    • eBooks
    • element14 presents
    • Learning Center
    • Tech Spotlight
    • STEM Academy
    • Webinars, Training and Events
    • Learning Groups
  • Technologies
    Technologies
    • 3D Printing
    • FPGA
    • Industrial Automation
    • Internet of Things
    • Power & Energy
    • Sensors
    • Technology Groups
  • Challenges & Projects
    Challenges & Projects
    • Design Challenges
    • element14 presents Projects
    • Project14
    • Arduino Projects
    • Raspberry Pi Projects
    • Project Groups
  • Products
    Products
    • Arduino
    • Avnet & Tria Boards Community
    • Dev Tools
    • Manufacturers
    • Multicomp Pro
    • Product Groups
    • Raspberry Pi
    • RoadTests & Reviews
  • About Us
    About the element14 Community
  • Store
    Store
    • Visit Your Store
    • Choose another store...
      • Europe
      •  Austria (German)
      •  Belgium (Dutch, French)
      •  Bulgaria (Bulgarian)
      •  Czech Republic (Czech)
      •  Denmark (Danish)
      •  Estonia (Estonian)
      •  Finland (Finnish)
      •  France (French)
      •  Germany (German)
      •  Hungary (Hungarian)
      •  Ireland
      •  Israel
      •  Italy (Italian)
      •  Latvia (Latvian)
      •  
      •  Lithuania (Lithuanian)
      •  Netherlands (Dutch)
      •  Norway (Norwegian)
      •  Poland (Polish)
      •  Portugal (Portuguese)
      •  Romania (Romanian)
      •  Russia (Russian)
      •  Slovakia (Slovak)
      •  Slovenia (Slovenian)
      •  Spain (Spanish)
      •  Sweden (Swedish)
      •  Switzerland(German, French)
      •  Turkey (Turkish)
      •  United Kingdom
      • Asia Pacific
      •  Australia
      •  China
      •  Hong Kong
      •  India
      •  Japan
      •  Korea (Korean)
      •  Malaysia
      •  New Zealand
      •  Philippines
      •  Singapore
      •  Taiwan
      •  Thailand (Thai)
      •  Vietnam
      • Americas
      •  Brazil (Portuguese)
      •  Canada
      •  Mexico (Spanish)
      •  United States
      Can't find the country/region you're looking for? Visit our export site or find a local distributor.
  • Translate
  • Profile
  • Settings
Personal Blogs
  • Community Hub
  • More
Personal Blogs
Don Bertke's Blog Why I want to speed up Global Warming!
  • Blog
  • Documents
  • Mentions
  • Sub-Groups
  • Tags
  • More
  • Cancel
  • New
  • Share
  • More
  • Cancel
Group Actions
  • Group RSS
  • More
  • Cancel
Engagement
  • Author Author: DAB
  • Date Created: 16 Feb 2014 10:29 PM Date Created
  • Views 2664 views
  • Likes 4 likes
  • Comments 27 comments
  • CO2
  • global
  • geology
  • levels
  • atmospherics
  • climate
  • warming
Related
Recommended

Why I want to speed up Global Warming!

DAB
DAB
16 Feb 2014

As some of you have seen in past posts, I completely reject the current effort to concern the public about global warming.

 

Mostly I object to the blatant scare tactics and lack of any scientific information that supports their position that we should work to stop it.  This last point is the really ludicrous goal.  When you do the math, we mortal humans have very few options when it comes to altering a natural planetary cycle.

 

So I went to the impeachable data source, the Geologic Record.  The data is very clear.  The earth has alternated between cold earth and warm earth states for the last 2.5 BILLION years.

When you add the Ice Core data, it shows that the cycle has been running about every 100,000 years for the last 700,000 to 800,000 years.

Almost all of the cycles have repeated like clockwork completely without any HUMAN involvement at all.

This last part is key.  The anti-global warming faction want to blame the industrial development by humans as the cause for the latest cycle.  rubbish!

 

The eco faction claims that burning the rain forest and burning fossil fuels has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and that is the cause of global warming.  Unfortunately, the math just does not work for this claim.

First of all, they are trying to use the Ice Core data as their source for comparing the CO2 levels.  They only made one tiny mistake.  The Ice trapped the CO2 level at about 10,000 feet (3000 meters) or higher.  They then want to compare those values to the current CO2 levels as measured at sea level.  When you look at the atmosphere density numbers, you would need to read twice or three times that sea level data to match the expected CO2 levels trapped in the ice.

 

Note, all of this data is in a paper published by a Polish Geologist who correctly measured the physical process of how the CO2 is first trapped and then dissolved into the water crystals as the weight of the ice compresses each snow level into glacial ice.  His research shows a very clean natural cycle by which the CO2 is removed from the atmosphere on the onset of global cooling.  Over the 50,000 years of the cycle, the CO2 levels are slowly reduced until they reach their minimum levels at the peak of the Ice age, some 12-14,000 years ago.

 

As the planet naturally warms, the ice releases the trapped CO2 until the levels reach their peak in about another 35,000 years from now.  No magic, no Human involvement, just a clean well defined natural cycle.

The latest NASA satellite measured the CO2 accumulations around the planet.  They confirmed that you have the highest concentrations of CO2 in the areas where we see melting ice.  In the high mountains and on both poles.  There were no abnormal CO2 levels in ANY of the industrial centers around the world.  So stopping the use of fossil fuels is not going to have ANY affect on the global warming cycle.

 

Now lets talk about the consequences of global warming.  The Eco factions have claimed that we will all drown as the sea levels rise as the ice melts.  That's not what the Geologic record says.

Yes, the ice will release a lot of water, BUT, ice takes up 10% more volume than water!  So we should se a net reduction in sea levels as the ice melts.

As for the land locked ice, yes it will add some additional water, but they are overlooking one important fact.  As the earth warms, there will be a tremendous absorption of water into the atmosphere.  One clear normal cycle is that warm air can hold a lot more water than cold air.  So as the earth warms, we will see a significant rise in humidity into the upper latitude regions that are currently very dry.

 

When we look into the Geologic Record, we see that a warm earth creates a huge amount of arable land up to the 70 degree latitude level.  That means we will get a huge amount of land to grow crops and support the population.  I do not see that result as being bad for humans.

 

We have also been told that the warming earth will create huge mega storms.  Again, science shows a much different result.  As the seas and the atmosphere warms, it will actually get MORE stable.  Why?  Storms are caused by the mixing of cold dry air and warm moist air.  With warm areas up to the 70 degree latitude area, the amount of cold dry air will be reduced by over 60%.  Most of the earth will experience the afternoon rain forest effect where we will get a short down pour in the late afternoon with just localized thunderstorms.  No mega hurricanes or typhoons, just consistent rain fall.  Most importantly, we will see rising humidity into areas that are now dry arid regions.  The deserts will bloom again!

 

As for living conditions, we will need much less energy to keep warm.  We should also need almost no cooling as the temperature will stabilize at about 85 degrees F for year round temperatures.

With the constant rain fall, we should have plenty of fresh water falling from the sky, so we can provide clean drinking water just about everywhere.  Hydro power can dominate the reduced energy needs of the population and we can use canals and small boats for efficient transportation.

 

I do not know about you, but I am not finding anything to fear here.

 

Plus we have a lot of time to prepare for the event.  We are currently about 13,000 years into the 50,000 year global warming cycle.  So there is absolutely no need to panic.  Yes, we will have some localized flooding along the way, but we have those every year anyway.

 

So while I am sitting in my home with the outside temperature at 30 degrees F, and oh by the way, we have spent much of the last six weeks below that temperature, I find it very desirable to have an early global warming cycle.  So I plan to burn fossil fuels, increase my carbon foot print and put as much CO2 into the atmosphere that I can and I urge all of you to do the same.

Plus I plan to beat any Eco person I meet with a stick, just to get warm. image

 

So I say enough with this Chicken Little doom and gloom propaganda about global warming.  The SCIENCE says don't panic, common sense says don't panic and the Eco people have not provided one shred of supportable data that says we should panic.  So just say "I want Global Warming and I want it NOW!" and join me in silencing these worry warts who know nothing of value.

 

Just my opinion,

DAB

  • Sign in to reply

Top Comments

  • Former Member
    Former Member over 12 years ago +1
    In general I would say to DAB - I can see why you think you might be onto something here, but as I understand it the science does not support your argument. A lot of people who are concerned about the…
  • Former Member
    Former Member over 12 years ago in reply to DAB +1
    "Ecologists are not scientist. Their predictions should not be considered as science. Its just their opinions and all opinions are only worth a bucket of warm spit!" Thats a very unscientific opinion Don…
  • Former Member
    Former Member over 12 years ago in reply to DAB +1
    Actually, probably not! CO2 is plant food
  • DAB
    DAB over 12 years ago in reply to Former Member

    Hi Tom,

     

    If you want me to agree with consensus then you have to prove to me it is based upon more than politics.

     

    Issue 1, where is the data they use to reach their conclusion, since they have dismissed the verifiable geologic and Ice core data, I am at a loss where they have come up with data that is accurate, temporally meaningful, verified, validated, and available for anyone to assess.  The last batch of data presented was admittedly faked.  So show me the data.

     

    Issue 2, what models and algorithms are they using to predict the dire consequences?  What are its variables and constants.  Where are the sensitivity analysis that identifies which variables have the most effect.  Where are the validation reports showing that the model outputs have been independently verified and validated.  What current data is being feed into the model and how accurately does it predict the future and on what time scale.  The current models used for weather prediction are only accurate at about 90% for fifteen minutes in the future and only for small local areas.  They are useless for anything beyond that time frame.

     

    Issue 3,  show me how a 0.01% change in CO2 levels can affect the entire planet?  The volumetric issues are crucial, you just can't look at a microcosm of data and extrapolate it to planetary effects.

    Everyone is underestimating the global effects of air mixing, up and down drafts, cyclonic activity, lightning, aircraft, volcanoes, evapotranspiration, ocean currents and the constantly growing number of people on the planet.

     

    The system is just too big and has too many variable for any computer model to predict anything about the future.  You can do projections, but they are just tossing dice for accuracy. 

     

    Your skeptics web site is the best political spin zone I have ever seen.  Its whole purpose is to plant doubt in everyone's mind that the detractors are a bunch of nut jobs.

    The tactic of killing the messengers is not science, it is propaganda at its most effective level.

     

    So I would like to continue this discussion, but you have not provided any information that changes my thesis that global warming is natural and not to be feared.

    You have shown that the political issues and propaganda on the issue is to be greatly feared.  After all, the only viable solution to the doom and gloom is to eliminate human activity across the planet.

    I for one object to that insinuation.

     

    As for my anger, you have interpreted my passion for anger.  In fact, you have provided me with more entertainment than I have had in months.  Thank you for your time, but I remain a non-believer and will continue to press my agenda until I am shown independently verified and validated processes that will put the "smoking" gun in the hands of humans.

    Until then, none of your arguments would survive scrutiny in a court of law and a jury of normal "humans".

     

    Let me know when you have the proof I need, but I truly doubt that you can provide it.

     

    DAB

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • More
    • Cancel
  • Former Member
    Former Member over 12 years ago in reply to DAB

    So when you say Ecologist, you are referring to the Journal? I see.

     

    I do have a friend who subscribes to your view and because I respect his thinking I've looked carefully at the evidence, and found nothing to support it. The consensus is clearly in favour of a man-made phenomenon, and the hockey stick has now been verified by sufficient data for no-one in the community to question it seriously - though I assume you must reject it outright?

     

    When you say the maths does not add up - what maths exactly does not add up? And on what grounds can you be sure your maths is superior to the published maths?

     

    What is your view on methane clathrate?

     

    And please see my reply above.

     

    Thank you

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up +1 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • More
    • Cancel
  • Former Member
    Former Member over 12 years ago in reply to DAB

    I'm curious to know exactly how you, as a scientist, diverge from the consensus.

     

    Do you reject IPCC5, and if so on what specific grounds? Can you point me to a peer reviewed paper which supports your dissent? I'm advised by colleagues that there has not been any dissenting paper published for a long time, and that most of the old ones have not survived scrutiny.

     

    Or are you planning to write one, and if so where are you intending to publish?

     

    Did you visit the site I linked to? https://www.skepticalscience.com/ That is expert opinion of a very high level of competence, I hope you will admit, and if not I would be interested to know why.

     

    All the scientists I know endorse, to a large extent, the scenario you ascribe brusquely to 'Ecologists'. It is all a matter of percentage risks. The worst case scenarios are genuinely terrifying, the best case scenarios would almost allow for business as usual, if it were not for the resource scarcity and other 'planetary boundary' issues - which I assume you must reject outright - (though on what grounds I would be interested to know). Planetary boundaries    - Stockholm Resilience Centre

     

    There are many variables, some to do with incomplete data and understanding, others to do with future decisions around mitigation, so we can't predict precisely what is going to happen. But the evidence for catastrophic damage is growing. I suspect you'll reject this, but if so it would make me I wonder from whence you are getting your information.

     

    Your anger suggests to me that you have some other reason to reject the consensus. I'm sure that as a scientist you would be careful to ensure that no non-scientific ideological influences would cloud your thinking, so I'm curious to know where you are getting your information on the latest science from, and how it supports your hypothesis outlined here.

     

    Thanks

     

    Tom

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up +1 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • More
    • Cancel
  • DAB
    DAB over 12 years ago in reply to Former Member

    Hi Tom,

     

    My point is that science does support my position.  It does not support the argument that any human activity has affected the cause of global warming and it certainly does not support any significant change in global warming.  The math just does not work to support their claims.

    The change in agriculture is precisely the issue.  We know from the ice core data that we are just beginning to enter a rapidly changing rate of change.  There will be disruptions in local conditions and I agree, we need to be spending resources to better understand how we can adapt our agriculture to the changing conditions.  We cannot change why it occurs, we can only address how we can compensate.

    The slow rate of change and abnormal events are part of the global cycle.  Volcanoes are one of several natural phenomena that can drastically affect the short term climate.  We also have comet strikes, asteroids and massive earthquakes as other big players.  We are at much higher probability of their changing world climate than we can ever expect from human caused changes.

    As for the 97% agreement by Ecologist, if you check closely, you will find that they agree that global warming is occurring, not that humans are the main cause.

    Plus, to get your Phd, you have to agree with the academic view of the universe.  That does not make their position truth or science, just a political necessity to get your degree and grant money to keep you employed.  The heads of states agree to capture their large block of votes.  Agreeing costs them nothing and gives them an edge over their opponents.  No surprise there, just political reality.

    I also agree that the amount of misinformation, both pro and con, is massive.  It is no wonder that a lot of people have been led to believe the politically correct theory of bad industry.  It reminds me of the big event about the ozone holes at the north and south pole.  Remember how these same ecologist convinced everyone to replace there fluorocarbon chemicals for CO2?  Guess what happened to the ozone hole.  NOTHING, its still there.  Why?  Because like global warming, it is the result of natural interactions between the ozone and strong magnetic fields at the poles.  The holes had always been there, are still there and will be there long after we are gone.

    So I tend to not believe anyone who claims that little amounts of anything, little on a global level, can change what will happen on the rest of the planet.  As I said, the math just does not work when you look at the volumes involved and the natural process for the atmosphere to move and disperse ground level gases.

     

    As too your last point, I agree.  We can flog the dead horse all we want.  The only productive thing we can do is to prepare for the eventual consequences.  Global warming will only stop if something really bad happens.  If it stops, then 6.5 Billion people will die.  Those are true facts, if Global warming stops.  If we do not continue to warm, then we will return to cold earth.  Cold earth will only support a population we saw thirteen thousand years ago, something on the order of a couple of million people I believe.

     

    Do not misunderstand my position.  I want Global warming to continue and I want people to stop any activity that will slow or end it.  The results of those conditions will be tragic.

    The results of Global warming will cause localized issues, but will benefit everyone in the long term.

    As I also said, we have no reason to panic.  The natural process takes many thousands of years.  The year to year and century to century rates of change are measurable, but mostly insignificant.  We have the time to adapt and find solutions to keep food production at a high level throughout the process.  All you have to do is look at the changes in just the last 1000 years and you get a good idea about what we can expect in the next 1000 years.

     

    The law of the planet is "Adapt or Die!", I suspect that it is also the law of the universe.  Standing still is not an option, the planet is constantly changing and we have no choice.

    I just want everyone to stop blaming imaginary causes and focus on how best to deal with the slow changes.  We have the science and we have the technology.  CO2 capture is a futile effort so we just need to stop wasting resources in that area.  We should concentrate on ways to move or create large quantities of clean water and food so that we can survive.

     

    DAB

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • More
    • Cancel
  • DAB
    DAB over 12 years ago in reply to Former Member

    I agree, the level of land based glacial ice might increase sea levels, but the volumetric numbers are inconclusive.

    As for the Albedo effect, the increase in water vapor absorbed by the warming air will greatly increase cloud cover world wide.  The net Albedo will probably not change much for a long time.

    The water temperature in the sea is an interesting issue.  On one hand, the warmer surface water will create a very good environment for sea life, both plants and animals.

    The changing water currents and mixing could pose an problem, but as you say, we just do not have enough data on the subsea environment to make any useful predictions.

    I did assume, that the climate professors understood the 10% ice to water factor, but many of their students appear to have not been present that day. image

    I used it as an issue to highlight the lack of credible volume predictions for the effects of the melting ice.

    Even if we doubled the amount of ice melting, we would only raise the ocean volumes by a few centimeters.  Not much to worry about really.

     

    DAB

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • More
    • Cancel
<>
element14 Community

element14 is the first online community specifically for engineers. Connect with your peers and get expert answers to your questions.

  • Members
  • Learn
  • Technologies
  • Challenges & Projects
  • Products
  • Store
  • About Us
  • Feedback & Support
  • FAQs
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal and Copyright Notices
  • Sitemap
  • Cookies

An Avnet Company © 2026 Premier Farnell Limited. All Rights Reserved.

Premier Farnell Ltd, registered in England and Wales (no 00876412), registered office: Farnell House, Forge Lane, Leeds LS12 2NE.

ICP 备案号 10220084.

Follow element14

  • X
  • Facebook
  • linkedin
  • YouTube