Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (7576)	4/25/2009 2:33:35 AM
From: The Vet	Respond to of 86356

Looking at real examples of atmospheric disruption in recent times like the Mt Pinatubo eruption provides an insight into the weaknesses and contradictions of the global warming protagonists arguments. Real world observations show us that after the eruption, global temperatures dropped by .5 to .6 C. This eruption released large quantities of SO2 into the atmosphere, but SO2 is listed as another "powerful" greenhouse gas. Expected increases in atmospheric CO2 levels were reduced, but overall atmospheric CO2 still increased. So we still had higher CO2 levels plus a huge addition of SO2 both "greenhouse" gasses and yet we had global temperature drops. How does this fit with the greenhouse gas causing warming theory? Of course it doesn't. Even the phytoplankton changes can't explain the result, because CO2 still actually increased, just at a slower rate. If CO2 actually decreased their could be validity in that theory but as usual the high priests of GW simply ignore or modify the facts that don't suit their agenda. Of course the simple explanation that the eruption released a large amount of particulate matter into the atmosphere which reduced the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth causing the observed cooling, which in turn cooled the ocean surface and allowed more CO2 to dissolve thus slowing the rate of atmospheric CO2 rise, won't get a mention because it requires one to believe that atmospheric CO2 levels are a result of global temperature changes and not the cause of those changes. It all comes back to cause and effect, and sadly they still don't get it...