Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Global Warming Caused By Sun, Not Gases -- Expert  
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 10 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3398 times:

A rise in the energy output of the Sun is the main cause of global warming, according to a scientist at the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St. Petersburg, Russia. A recent news report claims that the head of the observatory, Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, has concluded that parallel climatological developments on both the Earth and Mars are caused by an increase in solar irradiation. Dr. Abdussamatov discounted the view that global warming on Earth was the result of so-called "greenhouse gases".

(Excerpt)

Quote:
"Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians," he told me. "These parallel global warmings -- observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth -- can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."

The sun's increased irradiance over the last century, not C02 emissions, is responsible for the global warming we're seeing, says the celebrated scientist, and this solar irradiance also explains the great volume of C02 emissions.

If true, this alternative explanation could show interest in Kyoto to be nothing more than a tempest in a teapot, and global warming to be an inevitable result of a Solar System-wide cause potentially immune to human reversal.

The jury is clearly out on what it is that causes global warming.

Please see:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...bbe10d-3891-41eb-9ee1-a59b71743bec

[Edited once for grammar.]

[Edited 2007-01-29 12:54:15]

91 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8732 posts, RR: 42
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 1 day ago) and read 3384 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
The jury is clearly out on what it is that causes global warming.

If you believe studies funded by the energy industry, that is. Besides, an astronomer is by all means less of an authority on global warming than a climatologist.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineDavestanKSAN From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 1678 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 1 day ago) and read 3375 times:

Dude why don't you just stick to one thread at a time?? Just sayin.....

Dave



Yesterday we've sinned, today we move towards God. Touch the sky....love and respect...Safe Star!
User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 1 day ago) and read 3374 times:

Quoting Aloges (Reply 1):
If you believe studies funded by the energy industry, that is. Besides, an astronomer is by all means less of an authority on global warming than a climatologist.

Reports are always funded by someone. A lot of them going the other way are funded by those with an interest in promoting their view as well. The question is whether it is good science or not, and peer review will see to that.

But you should be clear about one thing: Man-made global warming is a theory that is currently popular, but it is by no means universal, nor is it necessarily right. The truth of the matter is that the models propounded by climatologists are little more than guesswork, because a chaotic system cannot be accurately forecast. For one thing, isn't it curious that all the models put forward show everyone's weather everywhere getting worse? That's rather unlikely. Nevertheless, the idea that we shouldn't pump millions of tons of pollution into the atmosphere is a pretty reasonable one, irrespective of the truth of climate change, but a healthy scepticism towards the concept is no bad thing.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 1 day ago) and read 3360 times:

Comparing some theoretical data "paralleling Earth with Mars" when there is mountain of data which tells another story is hearsay....but nonetheless, important to look at..


"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineSpeedbird747BA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 1 day ago) and read 3359 times:

Ill go ahead and post this again:

Ive said it before, in fact its getting boring saying this so often, man-made global warming is a dream.

In the 70s it was global cooling because all these emissions arent letting in enough heat, now its global warming because all these emissions are keeping all the heat in. So which is it?

Quoting Article by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:

Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C (plus or minus 0.2°C) since the late-19th century, and about 0.4°F (0.2 to 0.3°C) over the past 25 years (the period with the most credible data). The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S.) have, in fact, cooled over the last century."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

All this data, which only shows a razor-thin rise in global temperatures, can bring up the question: How accurate is our data for temperatures?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html

From Article:

"Absolute estimates of global mean surface temperature are difficult to compile for a number of reasons."

Where has your argument for global temperatures are rising gone?? Nowhere, vanished. Now, how about this folly about CO2 emissions raise the greenhouse gases enough to raise the temperature of the entire world enough to kill us, as is a obvious problen thus


Did you know, for instance, that CO2 is classified as a 'trace gas', making up less than 1% of the atmosphere, that in fact more than 1/2 of ALL anthropogenic CO2 emissions are absorbed naturally (althoug not much is known about where it goes - most theories suggest it is absorbed into the oceans and terrestrial biospheres), and that less than 1/2% that is not absorbed naturally is trumped, and I do mean trumped, by natural emmisions of CO2.

Most of the CO2 I mentioned, that is absorbed by natural processes, isnt taken into account in future predictions.

From Article:

"Current models used to project future atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations assume that the carbon cycle will continue to operate in the same way it has operated in the recent past. These models do not take into account the limitations of the carbon sink on land, or how biological, chemical and physical processes in the ocean and land might change either due to natural variability or external forcing. "

http://www.climate.noaa.gov/index.js...o_pa/cpo_pa_index.jsp&pa=gcc&sub=1


Another Article:

" They point to actual measurements taken from satellite and weather balloons and reliable surface observations that show little or no warming has taken place in the last 22 years; they show that the character of the observed warming is more indicative of urbanization than the effect of man's production of greenhouse gases; they present evidence that most of the observed warming in the last century can be linked to changes in solar luminosity and sunspot activity; and they show how the effects of even small changes on the sun can be magnified in our atmosphere through the effect these changes have on cloud cover."

http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1156/


So the 'drastic' rise in global temperatures is because of sun-spot and solar-flare activity, not because of greenhouse gases?


From Article:

"If there is indeed a solar cycle to global temperature connection, it would help explain the observed changes in recent decades as well as the changes observed over the centuries. The quiet sun period of the Maunder Minimum in the 1600s coincided with the global phenomenon known as the Little Ice Age, during which the Thames River froze in England and glaciers advanced.

There is evidence that solar activity (based on reports of very high aurora activity) was very high in the 11th and 12th century. Global warming then enabled the Vikings to inhabit Greenland. They eventually abandoned Greenland when the solar activity diminished and temperatures returned to frigid levels. "

From the Same Article:

"Research at the Danish Meteorological Institute found that when the sun is quiet, more cloudiness is observed in middle latitudes than when the sun is active. They believe this may be due to cosmic rays, which reach the atmosphere in much greater numbers during the quiet sun years because the earth’s protective shield is weaker. This cloudiness increase can serve to reflect more solar energy back to space and help to lower temperatures. Their research models suggest that the combined effects can explain net heating and cooling differences more like a few percent"

http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1045/

That explains it, explains it all. If you have any questions, dont hesitate to ask. Dont just hop on the GW bandwagon because its popular now, know the facts.

Cheers,
Kyle


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 1 day ago) and read 3346 times:

I'm curious about the implication that government-funded studies, rather than those funded by private sources, are necessarily the more accurate. Wouldn't government sources generally promote the role of government in whatever it is that may need regulation?

Has there ever been a modern government health department or ministry that has discounted the need for a government role -- or possibly an increased government role -- in public health?

The point I'm trying to make is that if one wishes to impute ill motives based on funding source, then one shouldn't exempt any source from such imputation.

Even academic sources may be biased, and there is no reason to believe, on the face of it, that global warming advocates are particularly less biased than any other. Their biases may not be monetary, but are they completely absent?

In the case at hand, I wonder who it is that funds the Palkovo observatory?


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21495 posts, RR: 53
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 1 day ago) and read 3335 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 3):
A lot of them going the other way are funded by those with an interest in promoting their view as well.

Ummm... No, actually, they aren't.

There is a massively funded campaign to support the dwindling number of deniers, but there simply isn't any large-scale industry or other interest group which could or would fund the mainstream of climatology with a plausible pressure for bias.

You're making an assumption of equality, but it simply doesn't exist.

The vast majority of climatologists work for governments or generally independent universities, and the evidence basis is a bit too substantial by now to come to the kinds of conclusions the oil industry would like.

In the absence of a substantiable claim they've settled for some medium- to low-level obfuscation so flimsy that only laymen and some journalists can still fall for it, but it can't hold up to actual scrutiny.

Quoting Banco (Reply 3):
The truth of the matter is that the models propounded by climatologists are little more than guesswork, because a chaotic system cannot be accurately forecast.

Wrong.

Weather is short-term chaotic but is still increasingly understood in its mechanisms.

Climate is a long-term mechanism which is also understood to an increasing extent, especially with regard to its interactions with other systems. And its interaction with CO2 is undeniable - even if there remain many details yet to be explored.

Quoting Banco (Reply 3):
For one thing, isn't it curious that all the models put forward show everyone's weather everywhere getting worse?

You're misinformed. They don't.

Every climatologist I've ever heard or read about makes it a point that the weather in different places will react differently to the ongoing change.

One repeated statement, however, is that the overall increased amount of energy in the atmosphere will in fact probably lead to a rise in the average number of severe weather phenomena.

Quoting Banco (Reply 3):
Nevertheless, the idea that we shouldn't pump millions of tons of pollution into the atmosphere is a pretty reasonable one, irrespective of the truth of climate change, but a healthy scepticism towards the concept is no bad thing.

We're in full agreement about those points!


User currently offlineSkyGourmet From Germany, joined Jun 2006, 121 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 1 day ago) and read 3329 times:

Quoting Speedbird747BA (Reply 5):
In the 70s it was global cooling because all these emissions arent letting in enough heat, now its global warming because all these emissions are keeping all the heat in.

So you're comparing aerosols to gases? In the 70s air pollution from aerosols lead to "global cooling". Now that filters have been installed on the chimneys of the factories, global warming caused by the greenhouse gases outweighs the effects of global cooling. It's actually not that hard to understand.



Meine dispatcher says there's something wrong mit deine Kabel?
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21495 posts, RR: 53
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 1 day ago) and read 3325 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 6):
Wouldn't government sources generally promote the role of government in whatever it is that may need regulation?

One might assume that if there was actually pressure applied to that end.

But government-funded research is also generally subject to an increased level of oversight and researchers can gain publicity quickly when pressure by the political government is attempted for a specific bias.

Such as the almost immediate publication of the Bush administration's attempts to suppress the findings made by their own scientists in the EPA and NOAA by threatening them to be fired.


User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8732 posts, RR: 42
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 1 day ago) and read 3322 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 3):
A lot of them going the other way are funded by those with an interest in promoting their view as well.

But who in the environmentalists' "corner" has got the financial means of the oil and gas industry? No one, most research on global warming is government-funded.

Quoting Banco (Reply 3):
The truth of the matter is that the models propounded by climatologists are little more than guesswork, because a chaotic system cannot be accurately forecast.

You needn't calculate everything in science, empirical evidence is worth just as much. CO2 has been emitted in growing quantities ever since the industrial revolution, and today we have glaciers and the polar ice caps melting faster than ever.

Quoting Banco (Reply 3):
For one thing, isn't it curious that all the models put forward show everyone's weather everywhere getting worse? That's rather unlikely.

To be perfectly honest, I'm not keen on finding out. However, if you look at desertification in, predominantly, Africa, you'll find that it's not only their weather that gets worse but their climate.

Quoting Banco (Reply 3):
a healthy scepticism towards the concept is no bad thing.

Healthy scepticism is one thing, outright denial of the entire theory is another. There are so many ways we can reduce CO2 output without reducing our quality of life, yet sometimes people even take pride in their individual wastefulness or mock anyone suggesting that they're acting irresponsibly.

It is however a good thing that even a US President with textbook connections to the oil industry is calling for reduction of emissions.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 23 hours ago) and read 3310 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 7):
There is a massively funded campaign to support the dwindling number of deniers, but there simply isn't any large-scale industry or other interest group which could or would fund the mainstream of climatology with a plausible pressure for bias.

That's not the case at all. It needn't be industry that has a political perspective, NGOs do as well. To believe that such entities are pure and unbiased in their approach is simply naiive. As has been put a number of times, the issue with state funding is that No Problem = No Funding.

Interetingly, the most heavily criticised area of such reports, by the likes of the UN, is the ignoring of the mediaeval warm period in the middle ages, when temperatures were in fact rather warmer than today. Indeed a Chinese naval squadron sailed right around the Arctic without finding ice anywhere. Yet when the UN put forward their models on climate change in 2001, not only was the wamr period missing, but so was the subsequent cooling in the centuries that followed. This J Curve showing a recent spike in temperature shows as being flat throughout this period when it was anything but.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 7):
Wrong.

Weather is short-term chaotic but is still increasingly understood in its mechanisms.

Climate is a long-term mechanism which is also understood to an increasing extent, especially with regard to its interactions with other systems. And its interaction with CO2 is undeniable - even if there remain many details yet to be explored.

Your absolute certainty on this leads me to disregard many of your points. You see, certainty is entirely absent in such matters. To say that weather is short-term chaotic but increasingly understood is completely wrong. The whole point about a chaotic system is that it can never be fully understood. Equally, with climate, there are simply too many variables to have anything approaching certainty. Now, you may agree with the conclusions, and you may be right, but such strong advocacy is rather reminiscent of religious belief than anything else.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 7):
You're misinformed. They don't.

Every climatologist I've ever heard or read about makes it a point that the weather in different places will react differently to the ongoing change.

One repeated statement, however, is that the overall increased amount of energy in the atmosphere will in fact probably lead to a rise in the average number of severe weather phenomena.

I could well be. You may well have read more on the subject than I have. Yet all I can see is that in everything I have seen, I have never yet come across a report saying, for example, that as a result of global warming, the Sahara is likely to become on oasis of plenty in the future. The general tone is apocalypse.

I'm not a climate sceptic in the sense in which you refer, shouting from the rooftops that it's all lies, but I do have some reservations about the reductive manner of the debate, the "We're right, you're wrong, we're all going to die" attitude towards the debate.

Anyone that expresses reservations about the perceived wisdom, whether scientific or otherwise, is shouted down as a heretic. That's not how science is supposed to work. A prevailing theory should be challenged, yet when anyone tries to do so they are dismissed as a lunatic. This subject is simply too complex for such levels of certainty.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineSaintsman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 2065 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 23 hours ago) and read 3303 times:

Whatever the real truth, global warming is bound to be promoted by politicians because its an easy way to raise tax.

User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8732 posts, RR: 42
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 23 hours ago) and read 3289 times:

Quoting Saintsman (Reply 12):
global warming is bound to be promoted by politicians because its an easy way to raise tax.

Fuel tax? Since when have they ever needed an excuse for that?



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 23 hours ago) and read 3289 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 11):
To say that weather is short-term chaotic but increasingly understood is completely wrong. The whole point about a chaotic system is that it can never be fully understood. Equally, with climate, there are simply too many variables to have anything approaching certainty. Now, you may agree with the conclusions, and you may be right, but such strong advocacy is rather reminiscent of religious belief than anything else.

Whilst you're right about the ridiculously strong advocacy that some portions of the scientific community have towards global warming, short-term weather is a more complicated set of partial differential equations than long-term climate. For example, 70% of the solutions to the PDEs for this Wednesday might lead to rain, resulting in the '70% chance of rain' in weather forcasts. In the long term, however, the climate is much more susceptible to trends. For example, a step chance in ocean ice will have little impact on the weather this week, but generally the trend can be seen that more light and heat is reflected by more ice, leading to a cooling and more ice forming. As a system, long-term climate is a lot easier to predict than short-term weather.

Of course, the problem now is that the whole debate has taken an ugly political term. Anyone who provides evidence of man-made global warming is instantly dismissed by the right wing as a tree-hugging liberal. Conversely any scientist who suggests global warming isn't man-made are treated as scientific outcasts and seen as a member of the right-wing establishment.

It's a dangerous position to be in with something so serious. I think the best solution is the pragmatic one - reducing carbon emissions does no harm and can only do good. From an economic point of view, there's great scope for profit from new, green technologies, and a reduction in carbom emissions comes directly from using less energy - which has a direct impact on profit margins.

[Edited 2007-01-29 14:34:00]

User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 23 hours ago) and read 3283 times:

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 14):

That's pretty much where I'm at myself - that the science on either side might be questionable, but taking steps to reduce carbon emissions - and pollution generally, is simply good sense.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 14):
For example, a step chance in ocean ice will have little impact on the weather this week, but generally the trend can be seen that more light and heat is reflected by more ice, leading to a cooling and more ice forming. As a system, long-term climate is a lot easier to predict than short-term weather.

Tha's true. But what scientists, no matter how much some might protest, do not know is what are the causes of such change - hence the article at the start of the thread. They can see things happening, but why that might be is open to much debate.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 22 hours ago) and read 3260 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 3):
But you should be clear about one thing: Man-made global warming is a theory that is currently popular, but it is by no means universal, nor is it necessarily right. The truth of the matter is that the models propounded by climatologists are little more than guesswork, because a chaotic system cannot be accurately forecast. For one thing, isn't it curious that all the models put forward show everyone's weather everywhere getting worse? That's rather unlikely. Nevertheless, the idea that we shouldn't pump millions of tons of pollution into the atmosphere is a pretty reasonable one, irrespective of the truth of climate change, but a healthy scepticism towards the concept is no bad thing.

Should we be serious about climate change? Of Course. But running head first into a single solution isn't necessarily the right idea.

Quote:
The Kyoto Protocol seeks to get the world to agree to burn less fossil fuel and emit less carbon dioxide, and much of that involves driving less. But even disregarding the treaty's economic costs, Kyoto's environmental impact would be slight. Tom M.L. Wigley, chief scientist at the U.S. Center for Atmospheric Research, calculates that even if every nation met its obligation to reduce greenhouse gas, the Earth would be only .07 degrees centigrade cooler by 2050.

Wigley favors a much more stringent plan than Kyoto, but such restrictions would severely restrict economic growth, particularly in the developing world. Nations such as China and India were excluded from the Kyoto Protocol; yet if we're serious about reversing global warming by driving less, the developing world will have to be included.

In other words, Kyoto is not only NOT a magic bullet for addressing global warming, it is near irrelevant.

The WashPost article also notes the following:

Quote:
The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notes that during the 20th century the Earth's temperature rose by 0.6 degrees centigrade and -- depending on which of the many climate models turn out to be closest to reality -- it expects the temperature to rise 1.4 to 5.8 degrees by 2100.

What does the IPCC think the effects of global warming may be? Flooding may increase. Infectious diseases may spread. Heat-related illness and death may increase. Yet as the IPCC notes repeatedly, the severity of such outcomes is enormously uncertain.
t
Two ways of dealing with global warming emerge. A more stringent version of Kyoto could be crafted to chase the unprecedented goal of trying to cool the atmosphere of the entire planet. Yet if such efforts resulted in lower economic growth, low-income populations in the United States and developing countries would be less able to protect themselves from the ill effects of extreme heat or other kinds of severe weather.

Alternatively, the focus could be on preventing the negative effects -- the disease and death -- that global warming might bring. Each year malaria kills 1 million to 3 million people, and one-third of the world's population is infected with water- or soil-borne parasitic diseases. It may well be that dealing with global warming by building resilience against its possible effects is more productive -- and more realistic -- than trying to solve the problem by driving our automobiles less.

Interesting observations, I think.

Quoting Banco (Reply 11):
Interetingly, the most heavily criticised area of such reports, by the likes of the UN, is the ignoring of the mediaeval warm period in the middle ages, when temperatures were in fact rather warmer than today. Indeed a Chinese naval squadron sailed right around the Arctic without finding ice anywhere. Yet when the UN put forward their models on climate change in 2001, not only was the wamr period missing, but so was the subsequent cooling in the centuries that followed. This J Curve showing a recent spike in temperature shows as being flat throughout this period when it was anything but.

Selective use of past data is one of the main reasons I am often skeptical of the gloom and doom forecasts we often hear.


User currently offlineJakeOrion From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 21 hours ago) and read 3237 times:

Scientist will use every excuse to get funding, and today Global Warming is nothing more than a fad.

Lets use simple logic shall we:

***

Earth: 5 billion years old

Humans: 10,000 years

Scientifically monitoring the weather: 100-150 years

***

Who is to say this is not the natural life cycle of the earth? Oh, by the way, why is global warming occurring on Mars? We don't live there yet, so how is it our fault climate changes are occurring?

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html



Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 18 hours ago) and read 3197 times:

I have always said that the causes of global warming are still quite unclear, and never has it been clearer to me that this is so. Banco, Speedbird, and others have shown precisely why it is premature to say that humankind is responsible for global warming, and might I reiterate that no one has disproved the common sense belief that governments, NGO's, and others advocating public action might have their own agendas to promote. The day that such advocates turn the magnifying glass on their own agendas is the day that their advocacy might be taken more seriously given the lack of proof of correlation between industrial output and climatological change.

User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 19, posted (7 years 10 months 18 hours ago) and read 3184 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 18):
Banco, Speedbird, and others have shown precisely why it is premature to say that humankind is responsible for global warming, and might I reiterate that no one has disproved the common sense belief that governments, NGO's, and others advocating public action might have their own agendas to promote. The day that such advocates turn the magnifying glass on their own agendas is the day that their advocacy might be taken more seriously given the lack of proof of correlation between industrial output and climatological change.

Careful here. You shouldn't take my scepticism for advocacy of no action. Pumping vast amounts of pollution, be they greenhouse gases or otherwise, into the atmosphere would tend to fall into the Bad Thing category. It remains entirely possible that the worst case scenarios being painted are every bit as accurate as the more extreme supporters would claim. It would seem to me to be remarkably foolish to wait until there was absolute proof before doing anything, because at that point it will be far too late.

We do have the technology to change our behaviour, and to take the whole matter out of the equation. Not acting at all would be rather irresponsible - merely saying that since no-one has proved it, we don't need to take it seriously prior to the point we're all heading up to Norway for a sunbathing break.

I do dislike the more extreme attitudes, for example those saying that all coal, gas and oil fired power stations should be shut, but at the same time opposing nuclear power - a completely unrealistic viewpoint - but nor do I subscribe to the opposite extreme. I don't want to conduct a mass experiment with the only place we have to live, and I don't really understand those that do.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 18 hours ago) and read 3177 times:

Quoting Aloges (Reply 1):
an astronomer is by all means less of an authority on global warming than a climatologist

Perhaps. However, the sun is very large - 1.3 million times the mass of the earth and almost infinitely hotter than the entire heat signature of every fire man has ever lit in the last million years. Don't you think subtle changes in its activity it might have some effect on our climate?

Or do you beleive that the global warming crowd has accurate data on the sun's output for the last twenty thousand years?

The oil companies have a selfish agenda on this issue.
So do the global warming voices. We just have not been allowed to see theirs yet. The people sounding the global warming alarm are exactly as greedy and selfish and power-mad as the oil companies. Most of us understand that we will not get to glimpse what they want out of this until their bill is presented.

Or do I misjudge human nature?



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineSpeedbird747BA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 12 hours ago) and read 3112 times:

Quoting SkyGourmet (Reply 8):
So you're comparing aerosols to gases? In the 70s air pollution from aerosols lead to "global cooling". Now that filters have been installed on the chimneys of the factories, global warming caused by the greenhouse gases outweighs the effects of global cooling. It's actually not that hard to understand.

What, do you have any knowledge of this at all? First, temp. records show there wasnt any cooling in the 70s. Second, aerosols had no effect on temp., they destroyed ozone, which is for reflecting some solar radiation. Third, 'filters' on factory chimney doesnt reduce aerosols because aerosols dont come from production anymore, they ave been banned. At least the harmful ones have.

Right now, the big green issues, IMO, are protecting our reserves, but doing it smartly. Second, reduce pollution. Cars DO cause pollution, and that is why Im pushing for alternative energy sources. Also, ciggarette butts, etc, its all just nasty. Needs to be cleaned up and reduced, if not stopped. Unfortunatly, itll be hard, if not near impossible to enforce. I am an avid outdoorsman, so I wanna keep the environment clean.

Cheers,
Kyle


User currently offlineGuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2059 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (7 years 10 months 11 hours ago) and read 3103 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 7):
There is a massively funded campaign to support the dwindling number of deniers,

Yea... right.. "dwindling numbers" of deniers? How about 17,000+ scientist deniers.. I'd post all 17,000 but I think the A.net bandwidth monitors might get a little ticked...

So go here.. they even break them down by state if you'd like to call them up to chat.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

Wonder how many of these 17,000+ Al Gore failed to talk to??

Oh, and as so far as who funded this project:

"The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition's organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project."

[Edited 2007-01-30 02:02:21]


As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 10 months 11 hours ago) and read 3100 times:

A new study conducted by Professor Borat from the Kazakhstan School of Advanced Thermodynamics concluded that global warming is caused by blowhards denying that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases.

User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (7 years 10 months 11 hours ago) and read 3077 times:

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 22):
So go here.. they even break them down by state if you'd like to call them up to chat.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

Wonder how many of these 17,000+ Al Gore failed to talk to??

The Petition Project was yet another great piece of deception on behalf of the skeptics. Many, if not all of the 17,000+ scientists who signed it were under the false impression that the study send along with the petition had been peer-reviewed (which it was not) and had previously been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific (and highly respected) journal of the latter (which it wasn't; heck, no scientific journal whatsoever had published it).

The study itself was written by Dr. Arthur B. Robinson, a biochemist, together with his then 22-year old son Zachary along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon are linked to multiple think-tanks funded by Exxon.

Then there's all the rather unscientific issues of how people were allowed to sign the petition with no control whatsoever of the scientific background of those who allegedly signed it. With such monumental lack of control, it is no surprise that Mr Alan Caruba, PR man for the pesticide industry, is listed as a petioner, to name just one. Mr Caruba has no scientific background whatsoever.


Sources:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php..._Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?sectio...004F43C-DC1A-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Al_Caruba
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
25 Post contains images Matt D : If the oil industry and some of the GOP had their way, this is the world we'd be living in: If the Euro-esque Socialist wannabes and some of the Democ
26 Post contains images TeamAmerica : If unanimous agreement is required for any question, then the question will never be answered. Most people are satisified when 4 out of 5 doctors agr
27 SkyGourmet : Huh? So why did you state that?
28 Falcon84 : Actually, I think we've found the real cause of global warmaing: all the hot air coming from AerospaceFan on a consistent basis, which emminates from
29 DLPMMM : Talk about a specious argument. CO2 and CO are completely different. Another specious argument. It is not the smallness of the measurement that is be
30 Post contains links Joni : The climatologists say that. Incidentally the 2007 IPCC report is going to be made public this Friday. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0119-0
31 Post contains links Joni : Here's another relevant link: U.S. climate scientists allege White House pressure http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C1-topN
32 Speedbird747BA : Double Post, sorry. Cheers, Kyle[Edited 2007-01-30 22:12:15]
33 Speedbird747BA : Yes, we do. Those measurements are usually teken in laboratories, or by exact satellites. Temperature on a Global Level is very different. As indicat
34 Post contains links WSOY : PARIS, Jan. 29 — Scientists from across the world gathered Monday to hammer out the final details of an authoritative report on climate change that
35 Post contains images MIAMIx707 : Weather and climate ins't completely understood yet.. I like how it was predicted 2006 was going to be a very active hurricane season in the atlantic
36 SkyGourmet : That would have been nice.
37 JakeOrion : Appreciate the links, thank you, but it still does not explain why global warming is occurring on Mars. Humans, yeah, I can see the pollution contrib
38 Post contains links WSOY : A report on the effect of the Sun's periodical activity on the Earth's climate: http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrati...eleases/2004/pressRelease200408
39 Post contains links N229NW : Well...while climate scientists everywhere have human/political factors driving them and are therefore vulnerable to missing or exaggerating data, et
40 Post contains images Speedbird747BA : Whoa, no reason to get rude when someone apologizes.....geez. Cheers, Kyle
41 Yellowstone : I think you are confusing the colloquial use of aerosol, as in the spray can, with the scientific meaning. Aerosol is short for aerial solid, and it
42 RichPhitzwell : Did it really take doctors to tell us smoking is not the best way to exercise your lungs? But really, its not the smoke that kills you, just what the
43 WSOY : You're right, it's not the smoke, it's the bodily liquids getting trapping in your lungs that's suffocating you, rather slowly I might add as well. I
44 Joni : You're right, I was only concentrating on the climate on Earth. Mars is, well, a different planet! And according to these 2.000 climate scientists po
45 Post contains links WSOY : Here's by the way an article from Russia (RIA Novosti) where our Doctor's name got spelled as "Abdusamatov". http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/5907899
46 Doona : I'm not too sure about global warming anymore. I heard that scientists 30 years ago warned about "global cooling", and claimed that the solution was t
47 Post contains images SkyGourmet : Thanks a lot, Yellowstone. I didn't even think of the other meaning of aerosols as in spray cans and was wondering what Speedbird747BA was complainin
48 Post contains images JakeOrion : I was going to say I should have been more specific, however, when I read this: You saw my point, and appreciate that. I understand what you are sayi
49 FDXMECH : This is the scariest prediction yet. Science ala Joseph Stalin. To all non-believers: the gulag. Even the Weather Channel's *Climate expert* Heidi Cu
50 RichPhitzwell : You can partially blame this on media. Even today, most experts may say "Global Warming" but what they really mean is extreme climate change. Same as
51 Post contains images TeamAmerica : Duh. The point is that ppm's of a gas can have a significant effect. Clear? No? We can accurately measure distances in microprocessor circuitry, yet
52 Post contains links and images Schoenorama : Skeptics often argue that humans are only responsible for a tiny fraction of what annually is released into the atmosphere. That is true, until a cer
53 JakeOrion : Then what do you suggest we do about it? (Die?)
54 Post contains links Schoenorama : Reduce the human contribution of CO2 emissions (amongst others) as much as possible and as soon as possible. There's plenty of info available online
55 PPVRA : From the graph you posted it looks like this instability has been like that for the past 2-2.5 million years. That's going a little far. There are st
56 MD-90 : Hah. At least an astronomer's a real scientist.
57 Galapagapop : Certainly discredits CO2 somewhat, certainly Co2 emissions have had an effect, but I still say when the Earth is 2/3 water, which is far superior heat
58 Post contains images Aloges : Not clear at all. Everything can have an effect in a small dose, it just depends on the environment. Throw a spoonful of water in concentrated sulphu
59 Baroque : This may be a REAL argument, but when I read the first reference to CO I assumed it was a typo for CO2. After numerous "helpful" clarifications, I no
60 Post contains images RJdxer : They've got the media in their pocket and that's all they really need. Al Gore will probably get an Oscar for his day dream documentary which goes to
61 Aloges : Oh yes, the media of course... why do we always hear that excuse? So would you prefer nitrous oxides, CO and hydrocarbons over CO2 in car exhaust?
62 Baroque : I don't think you should be asking this thread whether they prefer CO as opposed to CO2, there seems to be some confusion! Not you Aloges, I am sure
63 Post contains links and images RJdxer : Quoting Aloges (Reply 61): Oh yes, the media of course... why do we always hear that excuse? Maybe.......because it's true? http://www.cnn.com/2007/PO
64 Post contains links Aloges : Yup. http://www.newscorp.com/ for reference.
65 Post contains images TeamAmerica : Dear, oh dear. I reread my original post and it still seems clear to me. Speedbird747BA posted that CO2 was a trace gas at less than 1% of the atmosp
66 RJdxer : One company From Wikipedia News Corporation Misc. assets: 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment | Fox News Talk | HarperCollins | Fox Interactive Media
67 Post contains images Aloges : OK... you're out of it. I'll have to think about that... Depends - are you trying to make a point or just repeating that claim that all of "the media
68 Post contains links Schoenorama : The whole purpose of posting that graph was to show the "dramatic rise of the earth's temperature over a much shorter period of time than previously
69 TeamAmerica : Catalytic converters don't create carbon. In fact, with the catalytic converter the CO (no confusion there) and the various hydrocarbons in your exha
70 RJdxer : I did not say "all", but as my post suggests, the overwhelming amount of media available in this country alone is willing to give the global warming
71 Aloges : As do most scientists who were pressured by the Bush admin to remove the really naughty words from their reports - do tell, which one has more power,
72 RJdxer : If you go by the Iraq war the media does since they have portrayed nothing but negativism for 3 years and look at how the polls have sagged. Some sol
73 Post contains images Aloges : Hmmm... and where do the soldiers and the columnists voice their opinions? Oh, you have a scale for scientists... yeah right. As for 150 years and "d
74 RJdxer : Then you have somehow figured out a way to make the planet stop evolving on it's own? That would include volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and such. Oh
75 Aloges : Nope, but climatologists, environmentalists and the like have figured out a way to slow man-made global warming down a bit. I'm sure you've heard abo
76 Post contains links Joni : I don't quite follow you there, how would climate change cause an ice age? Anyway ice ages and global warming shouldn't be mixed up like that since i
77 Post contains links Joni : Heres further a Reuters article on the latest IPCC report: http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...3&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage2
78 Mrocktor : Fraud is the word. The political IPCC report is deliberate falsehood. No one, only the 800lb gorilla! Who needs "big oil" when you can have the frigg
79 Post contains links Jaysit : Gee whiz! The usual cabal on A.net (may Xenu bless them), keep trotting out nonsense, while even the Bush administration from LaLa land has finally ch
80 Post contains images Aloges : Now, now, Jaysit... you know as well as everyone else that all of this is part of a huge conspiracy of the liberal media. They want to shove their vi
81 Post contains links PPVRA : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6332725.stm Regardless of which side you are on, the above link is an example of how politicized, politicized, and
82 Aloges : That article is embarrassing for my country, too. Alas, a number of our politicians seem to spend more time in bed with the (auto) industry than with
83 Mrocktor : If they produced more wealth than the industries they destroy, you wouldn't have to force people to be "green" by government edict!
84 Post contains images Aloges : What? The production of solar panels, heat insulation materials and wind turbines destroys industries? Now I've heard it all. How many jobs and compa
85 Post contains links PPVRA : The industry body said EU targets were "arbitrary" and would lead to job cuts and relocation of production abroad. . . . European Commission's propos
86 Aloges : Forgive me if I still don't believe the automotive industry, the German one in particular, should have much of a say on pollution limits. If they had
87 PPVRA : So how would you know whether they are telling the truth or not? They have a stake in the issue, they must be lying! Now where is that quote from Kla
88 Aloges : The same goes for everyone who accuses the scientists producing report after report on man-made global warming of lying. Comparing the histories of s
89 PPVRA : Then revisit the thread starter's article and give it a fair chance. It's not a political report backed by the UN and who knows how many governments
90 ConcordeBoy : beautiful summary!
91 Post contains links RJdxer : Good for you... http://raju.varghese.org/articles/future.html The great thing about science is that it's just like predicting the weather. You can al
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Hurricanes=Not Due To Global Warming, Say Experts posted Sat Sep 24 2005 03:01:34 by Komododx
New Study On Potential Effects Of Global Warming posted Mon Oct 30 2006 19:09:39 by Mir
Trials For Global Warming Skeptics? posted Thu Oct 12 2006 05:25:33 by Halls120
Smoking Contributes To Global Warming -- Gore posted Sun Oct 1 2006 15:00:36 by AerospaceFan
Is Global Warming Still Disputable With Your? posted Fri Sep 22 2006 23:38:56 by WSOY
Will Ferrell As Dubya On Global Warming posted Sun Sep 17 2006 22:48:10 by Tbar220
Global Warming Has A New Convert posted Fri Aug 4 2006 01:47:39 by Halls120
OK, Naysayers: Global Warming Is Real posted Thu Jun 22 2006 20:31:18 by Boeing757/767
Do You Believe In Global Warming? posted Wed May 24 2006 18:24:17 by LawrenceMck
Al Gore Delivers Global Warming Warning At Cannes posted Sat May 20 2006 23:51:34 by SATX