Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Darkling

Global Warming Heresy

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure if I should start this topic under science or religion, considering how religiously fanatic the Global Warming Guys have become about their "beliefs".

A little known experiement seems to point us in the other direction. Too bad it took so long for someone to take notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now there's the same assertion that I have used for awhile now...

"It's the Sun stupid"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The Sun?

Ya think? DUH!!

Greenhouse gasses as the catalyst for global warming has always been a political movement, with very little science to back it up.

I find it hilarious when some true believer jumps me because I am a heretic when it comes to manmade global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:

Too bad some peeps here congenitally speak about things they can't understand due to missing scientific education.

Oh please, as if the scientist supporting Global Warming are using REAL science, I mean come on, First, they want to magically discount things like Water Vapor from the calculations of Global Warming, knowing FULL WELL, that water vapor accounts for up to 95% of the atmospheric heat retention properties, then they want to give us data that comes from Ice Cores up until just a few decades ago, then pull the old switcheroo and use Hawaiian Volcanic Air samples to create the magic "Hockey Stick" diagram that's become so famous. I mean come on, are we a bunch of Morons for buying this stuff or what.

quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:

Cosmic radiation correlation with cloud formation is debated at the CERN (where I was in 1995 for the last time) which is the biggest particle physics research facility in the world, under the code CERN-SPSC-2000-021 (2000 stands for YEAR 2000, lmao, but thanks for the update...).

1995? Ummm, his conclusive experiments that PROVED his theory didn't finish until 1997, and they weren't published until 1998??? Guess you weren't around for that?

quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:

More precisely, the study focuses on the modulation properties of the intensity of the Van Halen belt over the formation of low-altitude clouds which CONTRARY to high-altitude clouds, REFLECT solar radiation and thus favorise COOLING.

Thus, when exposed to sunlight, less low-altitude clouds means increased solar radiation reaching earth's surface. However, at night, since clouds are missing, the earth can RADIATE BACK IN SPACE the accumulated energy. In short, during daytime the exposed surface gets warmer, and at night colder. Therefore we are absolutely not talking about a cumulative heating absorption capability like what atmospheric CO2 induces for example.

It's indeed correct that cosmic radiation FAVORISES the creation of the MOLECULAR PRECURSORS which play a role in cloud formation.

However, and here's the problem (which you don't see mentioned in the article and for causa...): even Svensmark itself has NEVER been able to find or identify ANY GCR CORRELATION TREND with GW.

Worse, there are instances where REAL WORLD DATA presents results which are EXACTLY THE INVERSE of what Svensmark's model predicts. Excerpt:

"According to the mechanism suggested by Marsh and Svensmark [2000] to explain the positive correlation between GCR and low cloud cover, there should be no lags on monthly time scales between the GCR and cloud cover, but rather an almost immediate response of cloud cover to rapid variations in GCR. We have therefore calculated high pass filtered data permitting only oscillations faster than 1 year, and looked for correlations or co-varying features in these data. Surprisingly, there seems to be a negative correlation between GCR and cloud cover on these time scales (Table 1). If correct, this would contradict the Svensmark hypothesis, while at the same time suggesting a link between GCR and clouds on 1ÔÇô12 month time scales."

And here two extensive studies about the flaws of Svensmark's model and conclusions:

Benestad, R.E. (2002) Solar Activity and Earth's Climate, Praxis-Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, 287pp, ISBN: 3-540-43302-3

Damon, P.E. and P. Laut (2004), Pattern of Strange Errors Plagues Solar Activity and Terrestrial Climate Data, Eos, vol 85, num 39, p. 370

Next.

Well, the study that you provided a link to, doesn't refute the theory, however it does say that it weakens it a bit. Here are some problems that I noticed with it though.

[*]First, it only covers a 16 year period, which by weather pattern standards, is extremely small

[*]Second, they focused most of their studies on an area around the Hawaiian Islands (small sample size)

[*]Third, it seems to me that they've got the wrong studies in their hands, because the study DOES say that the more Solar Iradiance, the less Cosmic Radiation you have (since Solar Flares Bat them away) and they're pointing out, that the more Solar Radiance the less cloud cover, that's NOT the inverse of the study, that SUPPORTS it.

You know, just because I'm not a scientist, doesn't mean that I can't read or do math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two out of four inner planets are getting warmer. The icecaps are melting on Mars. Of course Venus is already hot enough to melt lead. (no away teams please)

The temperature cycle of a planet is immense. We have data that shows the Earth has gone through several temperature fluctuations in the past, doesn't it make sense that it would continue?

quote:

Mars Emerging from Ice Age, Data Suggest

By SPACE.com

posted: 03:00 pm ET

08 December 2003

Scientists have suspected in recent years that Mars might be undergoing some sort of global warming. New data points to the possibility it is emerging from an ice age.


quote:

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Kate Ravilious

for National Geographic News

February 28, 2007

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a naturalÔÇöand not a human-inducedÔÇöcause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.


quote:

Planet Venus: Earth's 'evil twin'

By Paul Rincon

BBC News science reporter

Nasa's Magellan spacecraft mapped 98% of Venus' surface with radar

...Venus has undergone runaway greenhouse warming, whereby trapped solar radiation has heated the planet's surface to an average temperature of 467C (872F) - hot enough to melt lead.

A dense atmosphere, composed chiefly of carbon dioxide (CO2), generates a surface pressure 90 times greater than that on Earth.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:

I say that you don't understand the subject because you DO NOT SPEND YOUR LIFE STUDYING THESE MATTERS, hence you can't immediately relate all the principal & various studies on the matter which confirm or infirm a given hypothesis to make your own objective opinion outside the framework of the subject of your (temporary...) focus.

I'm not going on just my understanding, but by the understanding of the scientists that are presenting the opposite of the "Popular" view. The reason I identify more with what they're saying, is because they make more sense and their data, to me, is more compelling.

quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:

It's absolutely classical from a non-initiated to see a single pseudo-scientific article and jump to conclusions while simultaneously ignoring all the rest of accumulated work in the field by other sources.

Isn't that the official IPCC policy? Ignore any science that conflicts with their views?

quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:

If you are really interested by this subject I advise you to consult BENESTADT. Svensmark's hypothesis gets quite a beating in it.

In all honesty, to me, this is a minor supporting argument, what's much more compelling to me is the data showing that the late 1800's was the COLDEST period in the past 1000 years, basically that was the end of "The Little Ice Age". Since then, the temperature shot up until around the 1940's, cooled until the 1970's then shot up again, up until about 5 years ago (and holding steady since). In other words, the 1940 was the BIGGEST decade of industrialization, and we had cooling, the exact opposite of what the Global Warming theorists have said should happen with excessive CO2 production. More importantly though, it's been MUCH warmer in the past, especially about 1000 years ago.

And if you missed the next parts of the video here's

quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:

Try to find out any scientifical peer-reviewed study which explains exactly how the 95% heat retention properties of water vapor you refer to are calculated AND CONFIRMED in the real world. You won't find any, you know why ? Because you can't calculate it, it's too complex, because you should take into account the conflicting properties of water under simultaneous various states, in various amounts, at different altitudes, localisations, and durations.

Worse, provided you could use a computer powerful enough, a few seconds after beginning your calculations, you could start all over again, because the variables are constantly changing...

95% is an empiric approximation that, funny enough, is always conveniently used as the flagship argument of all those who attempt to deny human implication in GW.

But you know what, you just pointed out there a HUGE flaw in the current Global Warming Studies, and that is that it's operating under flawed assumptions that is difficult to impossible to predict accurately using computer models. Which is why many are turning to historical data, such as what's shown on the video above. Take a look at it and let me know what you think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irregardless of the origin of the phenomena human beings contribute far far less than other natural factors do. Volcanic activity (Venus' problem) and other natural factors contribute much more in comparison.

Given our small contribution to the problem to begin with and our inability to "manage" the entire ecosystem of the world I don't see how we are going to do much more than waste time and resources on something we can't control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Global Warming caused by man is nothing more then political BS.

An excuse for governments, and the UN, to grab more power.

Nothing less, nothing more....

Man MAY be causing SOME global warming, but it is minisculse compared to what is happening naturally.

Sorry, I ain't gonna freak out, I ain't gonna open my wallet, "to save the earth" and I sure as hel am not going to agree with give governments more power over what I do.

I am supposed to feel guilty, because the earth is doing what it always does? I don't think so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm here in NY, hoping my flight didn't get cancelled like hundreds of others did. So far Jet Blue says it's going out on time at 1:15, so I'll keep my fingers crossed. I can see on their site that the one prior to mine was cancelled.

I've been coming here for my Neice's B-day every year for the past 5 years, and the first 3 years, the weather was great. Last year, it snowed! (Keep in mind it's SPRING) and this year it was in the 40's plus we got that Nor'Eastern blow through and the northern part of NY got Blizzard Conditions in spring.

Now I'm not going to say that the Earth is cooling, but I guarantee you that if the opposite had happend, these guys would be all over this as more "Evidence" that earth is warming.

Unlike most of these people I realize that weather isn't predictable and it changes all the time, it always has and always will, regardless of what we do. Who knows, maybe in the distant future, Spring will be Cold, Summer Mild, Fall Hot and Winter, well, fallish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't there an ice age once or twice in the past?

Wouldn't Global Warming have contributed to melting said ice?

Tell me, then - what did man do to cause THAT sequence of global warming?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

Wasn't there an ice age once or twice in the past?

I doubt any of the Global Warming crowd will be answering any time soon, they're probably shivering in the current unseasonably cold temperatures or reading The Sun Sentinel on how it's currently running about 10 to 15 degrees colder than usual, and how we've broken records set back in 1980.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by echo:

I just hope all the Aquanet my sister and I used in the 80's isn't causing this.


55 gallon size???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×