njlauren
Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
So many inaccurities.
No - the little ice age wasn't confined to Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
No - 90% of climate scientists do not agree that anthropomorphic global warming is occuring. This was a false claim that got to be accepted as internet truth, when in fact *numerous* of the scientists quoted *disagreed* with the theory. Go google it.
No. The models are just flatly wrong- as Michael Mann- and others have already conceded. Google it.
No. Climate realists (people you call deniers) do not in general advance a theory that says that climate warming is caused by natural cycles. Climate realists do not have to advance a theory to show that the IPCC theory is wrong. Personally, I, NASA, CERN believe that global warming (as well as other planet warming) is caused by the increased ionizing radiation from the sun, possibly tied to the historic sunspot minima.
No. You won't get China, India, or Russia to agree to climate change protocols. First, they don't believe the science. Second, Russia participated in the first manipulation of data. As a matter of fact - with the EU's experience in 'green energy' you won't get them to agree to it either. Leaving the US the only significant nation pursueing 'global warming'. Idiotic.
The drivel about solar radiation being worked out is just absolute DRIVEL. Again, I encourage anyone actually interested in real science to go read NASA's recant - where they admit that the entire global warming experienced to date is probably the result of variations in solar radiation. I quote "a .1% variation in solar radiation what have more effect" the author goes on to say - than the entire human contribution as wall as the radioactive heating from the earth core. Or you can read CERN"S research that says that the entire phenomenon of global warming is attributable to increases in ionizing radiation. Or read Danish researchers studies on ionizing effect on cloud formation.
I have no idea how you can with a straight face say that 90% of all climatologies believe in global warming. I have no idea how, with a straight face you can say that temperatures have increased over the last 16 years.
Finally, it isn't the fact that nasa altered *one* data point. The fact is that data has been altered in 1995, in 1997. More than three thousand data points were altered in the second manipulation of data. More than 350 recording stations were eliminated in the first sets of fraudulent data.
And the Ipcc basically fraudulently *made up* their data. They have no actual raw data for people to read.
Why does it matter? Because data is what makes it science. And once you start falsifying data you have no right to speak.
Finally - you say that CO2 concentrations are caused by temperature - not the other way around. Prove it. Because I don't know a single scientific study that does.
And lastly.. here is a graph of CO2 concentrations over the past 425000 years. Hmmm if things are varying the exact same way in the absence of human intervention.. kind of hard to doubt your conclusin of human caused.. isn't it.
You keep claiming NASA and CERN are saying the warming is causes by radiation, yet then you say there is no warming, that temperatures are not rising (for the record, the fact that with each passing decade global temperatures continue to set new records). In the northeast, we have had 4 once in a hundred year storms in 2 years, and the same is occurring other places.
More importantly, if NASA and CERN are saying this is caused by solar radiation, where is this report you cite? Do you have a link to it? I did some googling, and basically this is one of those things that came out of right wing blogosphere, not reality, that the only thing anyone can find are NASA reports that say that solar radiation may play a role in warming, which isn't exactly controversial.
As far as radiation not being studied, it is, it has been extensively measured for the last 50 years or so, and solar radiation levels have not increased significantly, there isn't one report out there that shows that. The tea party morons make claims like there is radiation coming from the sun we can't measure, and when you get into that, it is like saying God exists cause no one can prove it doesn't exist....
The 90% figure is correct, what you are doing is what the tea party and the like do all the time, they make claim like 'thousands of scientists diagree", 'hundreds of thousands of scientists disagree", which is bullshit for several reasons:
1)The people they cite often are not climate scientists, a lot of those '10's of thousands' are people with degrees in nutrition science, climatology, paleontology, entomology, biology and so forth.Among scientists who study climate science, who have trained in it, who write papers and do research for peer reviewed journals, well over 90% are in concordance with global climate change and that it is man made. Sorry, Elmer Buttfuck who got a PHd in composting from the University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople doesn't count (and if someone knows my reference to that 'school', they get a gold star).
2)Even among climatologists, there are big disagreements, which the tea part maroons want to claim shows there is no consensus. The problem with that is scientists in any field work very differently then religion which the tea party schmucks use as a basis for 'truth', science rarely claims absolute truth to things like global warming or evolution, because there will be disagreements about how things work, and science is always revised and revisited as new evidence comes up. A lot of climate scientists, for example, winced at "an inconvenient truth" because many of its conclusions were based on taking extremes of various models and melding it into one story, kind of like people do with the nativity stories in the NT when they create the Nativity plays kids do in church.
They have serious disagreements of how fast CO2 is going up, how fast climate will change, the expected results and what can be done, if anything. There is a professor at MIT for example who agrees the climate is shifting, but says basically we cannot change that now, so we should concentrate and adjusting to the changes, hardening infrastructure, etc.
3)You claim of tampering with the data is one of the older chestnuts out there, and guess what, it is more right wing drivel pulled out of their ass. James Inoeffe (sp), the clown from Oklahoma who is one of the biggest skeptics of climate change, who tried time and again to stop any kind of research into it being paid for with federal money (being from Oklahoma, where if you take out the oil and gas industry, it basically is nothing more than cowtown central), commissioned a study to look at the 'hockey stick' graph you are making fun of, he funded a group of , get this, scientists inclined to be skeptics, to look at everything from how the data was gotten, the measurements, the assumptions, you name it...and after a year of study, they came back and said the hockey stick graph was correct, that while they had some criticisms of some parts of it, adjustments they recommended (which I believe actually have been incorporated into the data), that the fundamental basis of it was correct (dear old congressman Inoeffe then tried to get the study buried).
As far as rising temperatures causing CO2 levels to rise, there is nothing controversial about that. Places that are what we call permafrost, in Alaska and Siberia, are basically frozen bogs, and if you have ever been around a swamp, you know what they smell like and why, it is decaying vegetation, which releases CO2 (as organisms break down the organic matter, they release co2, same way we do when we respirate) and methane, both of which are greenhouse gasses. There are large tracts of land in cold places like Alaska and Siberia that are like this, and as they begin to melt (and they have, there are whole towns in Alaska that have literally collapsed because they were built on permafrost), it will release gases as the stuff decays, plus there also is methane that has been trapped for a really long time.
What amazes me is how people can delude themselves, given just how much fossil fuels we have burned over the past century and a half, how much is being burned today with the rise of heavily populated countries in Asia and South Asia, how they believe the atmosphere can simply 'take it'....then again, it was these same people who said dumping chemicals into rivers and oceans was an acceptable way to get rid of them, that 'nature will take care of them'......until we had rivers catching fire, fish and birds dying off and the like, and the same morons accused scientists of lying, or how if we do something about it, it will cost jobs (course, they didn't talk about the cost, like people getting cancer because their drinking water came from the same places we were dumping chemicals in). You don't unleash billions of tons of co2 that were 'locked' from the atmosphere hundreds of millions of years ago when plants and animals died (oops, I forgot, reports from NASA and CERN also are reporting that the earth is really only 6000 years old and it was made by the supreme being in 6 days.....), it is well beyond what any natural 'sink' could handle.
There is so much evidence that global climate is changing, and at a rapid pace, that it is mind boggling anyone can believe it is natural. Glaciers are melting at a rapid pace, and one thing the morons can't explain is how glaciers that have survived millions of years, including warming and freezing cycles many time over, never melted, through volcanic activity, through sunspot cycles, through solar flares, through everything, they basically simply say scientists are lying. Whole ecological cycles have changed within my lifetime, species are moving north at a rapid pace from warmer climates, insect species that evolve rapidly are seen changing thanks to changes in weather patterns. Like I said, the northwest passage when I was growing up was frozen solid the whole year (years ago, in the 70's, a big deal was made about a russian nuclear powered icebreaker making it through), today it is dethawing to the point that they think commercial traffic will happen.
Not to mention that the world's population has grown to well over 7 billion people from approx 1 billion 100 years ago, and more importantly, 3 billion of them live in industrialized or heavily industrialized societies, and it doesn't take a genius to argue that man has to be affecting the atmosphere and climate. I think people are living in denial, they either have been so scared by the Koch brothers and Exxon Mobile into believing that if you try and stop CO2 emissions we'll be living in mud huts eating roots, or they are religious twits who think this is God warning us because we have gay marriage.
For me, I am kind of hoping that Craig Vettner succeeds. Vettner put together a small group of scientists with VC funding and they broke the human genome before the Human Genome project did. He has put together a similar team with its goal to develop fuels to replace oil and natural gas made from modified algae using a modified photosynthetic process. It is possible, the sugars that plants produce from photosynthesis are chemically closely related to oil and gas (think about it, alcohol is made from sugar, and alcohol is close enough to oil and gas that it is possible to turn alcohol into gasoline, natural gas or theoretically oil). This isn't a pipe dream, it has been done in the lab, but the goal is to do it where it is economically feasible, and that has remained elusive. Cool part is, they can 'feed' the algae on human wastewater, which has the added benefit of being a sewage treatment methodology and producing clean water, too. This is truly carbon neutral or at least close enough that whatever the net carbon it produces is small. Do this, and you also have solved a lot of the issues with the mideast, Saudi Arabia will no longer be able to sponsor terrorism cause they won't have a pot to pee in, Iran will probably end up a smoking ruin without oil to blackmail the world with, and terrorists will be so cut off from funds that it won't be as hard to stop them (30% of the petrodollars that go to the mideast go into a black hole, are untraceable...anyone wanna bet on how much of that ends up in the hands of terrorists). The advantage are unlike solar and wind and such, it works with our current infrastructure, and also as I mentioned has several big benefits to it.
|
RE: Little fact about global warming for you - 
Profile
perhaps you should check how much the oil industry is subsidised by the taxpayers. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread