More proof of Global Warming (page 7)

Bonnie_Clyde

SixofNine - Try this...http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

Just google "1972 ice age". This is not a vague memory.

Brother Apostate

Hydrocarbon use has increased 6-fold since 1940 but has no noticeable effect on atmospheric temps.

Temperatures correlate very, very closely with solar activity, as opposed to hydrocarbon use.

Solar irradiance correlates well with Arctic temperature, while hydrocarbon use does not.

There's an excellent paper that goes into detail on why humans are NOT the cause of global warming. Feel free to go here to read it in its entirety:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm#Message5976

BA

I am a sad stupid git also. I am a scientist and remain sceptical about the level of hysteria but remain open. I for instance have just finished reading Thomas Friedman, "Hot,flat and Crowded". So I am willing to listen to all the evidence.

However, it is extremely hard to be anything other than sceptical when

in the 1970s we were entering an ice age

in the 1980s acid rain was going to destroy the earth

in the 1990s the hole in the ozone layer was going to give us all cancer of the skin

So I am going to remain stupid and sceptical . SORRY

In the 70, we were not entering an ice age.

In the 80's acid rain really was a problem.

In the 90's, there really was an enlarging hole in the ozone, which the world community came together to stop.

Your mentioning all of the above, is cynicism, not skepticism. There is a big difference. Learn it, and you'll be a much better scientist.

SixofNine

Come on dude, how many times has climate change happened in just the past 1,000,000; 10000; 1000; 100 years?

In the way it is happening now? Not ever, that we know of.

Why is it all of the sudden US? Climate change is a natural phenom.

All of the sudden? What do you mean by that? Scientist have had their eye on this for over a hundred years now. And sure enough, about the time that we really turned on the carbon and methane spigots, their predictions started coming true.

Of course climate change is a natural phenomenom. That doesn't mean that what is happening now is natural. What is natural about humans pumping incredible amounts of carbon dioxide and methane into the earth's atmosphere? I'm begging you, tell me exactly why you theorize that doing that wouldn't have an effect on climate?

I know you don't have kids, but if you did, exactly what levels of ghg's would you say is ok for their future? Twice the current amount? Why not 10 times the current amount? Why not 20 times the current amounts? Do you have any cut-off for the amount of ghg's that can be added to the atmosphere and still have a planet that supports human life?

SixofNine

"Just google "1972 ice age". This is not a vague memory. "

.

But it is an inaccurate memory. There was not any kind of consensus on a coming Ice Age.

You're inferring that there is a similar scientific situation between now and then, and there is not.

And even if there were, that would not mean that "scientist should just all go home now, we got it wrong in '72, so let's give up".

SixofNine

There's an excellent paper that goes into detail on why humans are NOT the cause of global warming. Feel free to go here to read it in its entirety:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm#Message5976

No, that is not " an excellent paper that goes into detail on why humans are NOT the cause of global warming."

Feel free to go here to read it's thorough debunking in it's entirety (just follow the links):

Oregon Institute of Science and Malarkey

Filed under:

Climate Science

— group @ 7:50 AM

A large number of US scientists (to our direct knowledge: engineers, biologists, computer scientists and geologists) received a package in the mail this week. The package consists of a colour preprint of a 'new' article by Robinson, Robinson and Soon and an exhortation to sign a petition demanding that the US not sign the Kyoto Protocol. If you get a feeling of deja vu, it is because this comes from our old friends, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and is an attempt to re-invigorate the highly criticised 1999 "Oregon Petition".

The article itself is just an update of the original article, minus an author (Baliunas), with a switch of Robinson children (Zachary's out, Noah is in), but with a large number of similar errors and language. As in previous case, this paper too, is not peer reviewed.

Since this is a rehash of the previous paper plus a few more cherry-picked statistics of dubious relevance, instead of tediously going through the whole thing ourselves, we are going to try something new - an open source debunking.
(more…)

oompa

Funny to me...but i have read theories that continued greenhouse gases accumulating in the upper atmospher...expecially the heavier carbon or COAL ones...would in time CHILL the earth...like huge volcanoes have in the past...they could block out so much sunlight...there would not be as much heat to TRAP by these gases......and the earth would cool a few degrees......I believe one volcano they blew up an island...Krakatoa...cooled the earth for a few years................oompa

maybe it really is bigger and better than mankind...self-regulating.....an incredible design???

Brother Apostate

Feel free to go here to read it's thorough debunking in it's entirety (just follow the links):

Gotta love the term "debunking"!!

To some "debunking" = defending an erroneous point of view that is a source of their current or intended livelihood.

BA

SixofNine

Hehheh... here's more about the poop article you dropped on us, BroApostate. It was published in a journal with the impressive name "Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons".

Ck out this little gem about said journal:

Articles published in the journal have argued that the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are unconstitutional, that “humanists” have conspired to replace the “creation religion of Jehovah” with evolution, that HIV does not cause AIDS, and that the “gay male lifestyle” shortens life expectancy by 20 years. A series of articles by pro-life authors also claimed a link between abortion and breast cancer; such a link has been rejected by the National Cancer Institute.

The journal is not listed in the major literature databases of MEDLINE/PubMed nor the Web of Science. Quackwatch lists JPandS as an untrustworthy, non-recommended periodical. The World Health Organization found that a 2003 article on vaccination published in the journal had “a number of limitations which undermine the conclusions drawn by the authors”, although it noted that the matters raised in the paper were of sufficient importance that “WHO and GACVS will continue to keep the issue under careful and ongoing review.”

SixofNine

"It's amazing to me that some folks still don't understand the evidence- that mankind's contribution to climate, whether cooling or warming, is a rounding error compared to natural processes."

This is blatantly stupid. What has changed about humanity compared to nature in the last 100 years compared to a billion years previous? C'mon big boy, put on your best thinking cap and answer.

More proof of Global Warming

Share this