Jump to content
Science Forums

Global Warming a fake?


Recommended Posts

I was reading quite a few articles that human causing global warming is a fake? I wanted to post this after looking through this section and seeing all the global warming were all going to die, how i would solve global warming and other stuff like that.

http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm

ARg cant find my original sources but there is one. I really personally hate the ending of that article though.

 

Earth goes through natural cycles and there has been no direct relations with carbon dioxide emissions from industrial civ and temperature increase.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 290
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Carbon dioxide is a weak IR absorber, 380 ppm in air. Water is a powerful IR absorber, 30,000 ppm in air. Where are the hysterics about humidity?   We have just come through some of the most active

Sunspots are cooler darker areas than the overall background. They are surrounded by faculae that are hotter and brighter. Energy emission varies as the fourth power of absolute temperature. Let's

Received vis private message;   {Removed - As I was made aware it was a violation of the rules to post it.}   It is not my intention to disparage any credible information. A blog site is not credible

Carbon dioxide is a weak IR absorber, 380 ppm in air. Water is a powerful IR absorber, 30,000 ppm in air. Where are the hysterics about humidity?

 

We have just come through some of the most active sunspot years on record. (Tough on ***-tronaughts' eyeballs - causes radiation cataracts) The solar constant is larger given lots of sunspots (surrounding areas called faculae glow brighter). Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn are showing minor temp rises. It looks like years of peak sunspot activity may be followed by years of attenuated activity, like in the 1950s and 60s. Go back and look - an impending ice age was Officially upon us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Earth goes through natural cycles and there has been no direct relations with carbon dioxide emissions from industrial civ and temperature increase.

 

If you google around for studies from ice cores you can quickly call this into question. Ice core studies have shown both that carbon dioxide concentration correlates well with temperature and that our current atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is higher then its been in at least the last 400,000 years. (See for instance, the June 1999 issue of Nature)

-Will

Link to post
Share on other sites
Global warming is real.

Sunspots are cooler darker areas than the overall background. They are surrounded by faculae that are hotter and brighter. Energy emission varies as the fourth power of absolute temperature. Let's try 10% cooler and 10% warmer and see what we get for equal areas of emission.

 

(0.9)^4 = 65.6%

(1.1)^4 = 146.4%

 

That is not a robust analysis but it is adequately qualitative. If it were 65.6% and 134.4% things would balance. In the real world, the more dark sunspots there are the more energy the sun emits overall because of the coupled faculae. We're talking a fraction of 1% difference/average. It's enough to push the entirety of Global Warming.

 

http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/sunspots.htm

http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/images/ssn_predict_l.gif

Things have been smoking

 

The warmest day of summer is not 21 June (August is evil) nor the coldest day of winter 21 December (try February). There is a lag between energy input and temperature distribution. Same for a changing solar constant. If we do nothing, the "hottest years in 500 years" from the 2000-2002 explosion of sunspots will simply vanish. If the sun stays quiet as expected, Global Warming will vanish and the new grief will be an impending ice age.

 

We know exactly how much coal, gas, and petroleum are burned because we monitor and tax every drip of production. The total fossil fuel CO2 annual input into the atmosphere is lost in the noise of natural emissions measurements. It is a sparrow fart compared to CO2 released by global wildfires each year.

 

The Carbon Tax on Everything is government revenue enhancement. It will collapse First World economies and not couple to the Global Warming problem short of major national depression like Ford's and Carter's stagflation. You don't drive to work if you don't have a job.

 

If you want to reduce atmospheric CO2, plant tens of thousands of square miles of new forest. When the wood matures, cut it down and build houses to sequester that carbon in cellulose for another 50 years. Replant the forests.

 

US Enviro-whiner policy is to discourage wood frame houses. Brazil is destroying the Amazon jungle as fast as it can chop trees and light fires for farms to grow sugar cane for its "ethanol economy." The soil is exhausted in three years and they cut deeper into the Amazon for new land. It must be government - it is exactly the subsidized wrong thing to do in the worst possible way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you google around for studies from ice cores you can quickly call this into question. Ice core studies have shown both that carbon dioxide concentration correlates well with temperature and that our current atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is higher then its been in at least the last 400,000 years. (See for instance, the June 1999 issue of Nature)

-Will

 

The ocean is the single largest absorber of carbon dioxide, where does it go? Why wouldn't ice do the same over an extended period of time? I have yet to see a study that says carbon dioxide levels in ice will "not" change over time, here's proof. If industry drives Global warming, that is going to push use into an ice age, who's to blame for the last one. Oh and the one before that. Did the dinosaurs drive SUVs?

 

Global Warming, not to be confused with pollution, is a scam. Billions and billions spent on guilt and fear. It is a natural occurrence that happens. Planets get warmer, planets get colder. Get over it. Better yet, show me the study that says GREEN power isn't going to cause problems. I don't need user defined studies to tell me that if you put up a massive solar array, you will be robbing the planet of the "normal" energy it receives, thus changing the effect of said energy. Nor do I need a user defined study to tell me if you install many, many thousands, millions, and billions, of Geo-thermal wells it is not going to change the ground temp. Even wind power robs nature of energy down stream. Explain to me how these are not going to affect us. Minor amounts you' say? Well explain how a 200 year, 2% contribution is going to affect Global temperatures more than 400,000 years of natural occurrence. He11 the trees impact "Global temp" more than we do, maybe we should run out and cut them all down.

 

BTW I saw this quote and it says it all,

 

"You may not be able to change the world, but at least you can embarrass the guilty."

 

That bout sums up the Doom-Sayers case, {I can't prove what I say, but because you disagree it’s your fault and you should be ashamed}.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you want to reduce atmospheric CO2, plant tens of thousands of square miles of new forest. When the wood matures, cut it down and build houses to sequester that carbon in cellulose for another 50 years. Replant the forests.

 

See, that's a much better idea than killing off all the brown people.

 

Errin - you've been reading the wrong studies.

 

http://realclimate.org

 

TFS

Link to post
Share on other sites

The industrial connection to global warming is more emotional than rational. This is being used to manipulate environmental policy. It is also a tactic to ween us off fossil fuels. Below is some forest fire data just for the US.

 

Daily Statistics 7/10/06

Number of new large fires 4 States currently reporting large fires:

Number of active large fires 19 Alaska (1)

Arizona (1)

Arkansas (1)

California (6)

Florida (1)

Nevada (5)

Texas (1)

Washington (1)

Wyoming (2)

Note: Includes WFU fires

 

 

Acres from active fires 160,358

Number of Wildland Fire Use (WFU) fires 3

Number of Wildland Fire Use (WFU) acres 5,310

Fires contained on 7/8/06 3

Year-to-date large fires contained 698

Year-to-date Statistics

 

2006 (1/1/06 - 7/10/06) Fires: 61,653 Acres: 4,007,311

2005 (1/1/05 - 7/10/05) Fires: 33,834 Acres: 3,034,619

2004 (1/1/04 - 7/10/04) Fires: 40,986 Acres: 3,080,965

2003 (1/1/03 - 7/10/03) Fires: 29,457 Acres: 996,924

2002 (1/1/02 - 7/10/02) Fires: 46,062 Acres: 3,162,249

2001 (1/1/01 - 7/10/01) Fires: 44,124 Acres: 1,244,092

2000 (1/1/00 - 7/10/00) Fires: 51,519 Acres: 2,232,874

10-Year Average

2001 - 2006 Fires: 43,961 Acres: 1,950,865

 

Some International Data can be found at: http://www.unece.org/trade/timber/ff-stats.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

When it come to global warming it is the amount of atmospheric CO2 that is important. Much of the CO2 that has been the atmosphere at different times in history is now part of shell fish and limestone deposits. Acid rain can cause this to be released from the soil into the atmosphere.

 

I did a rough calculation of how big one year of world oil production is. It is about 3767 million tons last year. One ton is 7.33 barrels and one barrel is 42 gallons. If we dumped this onto 1 millions acres of land it would be about 3.5 feet deep. If we spill it over the acreage burned by forest fires in the US this year, so far, it becomes about 1ft deep. The oil burn is sort of in proportion to all the trees and shrubs burned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Received vis private message;

 

{Removed - As I was made aware it was a violation of the rules to post it.}

 

It is not my intention to disparage any credible information. A blog site is not credible information. Maybe a good place to find links, but not proof. I also call into question the sites that continual funding is predicated on the support of one position/opinion over the other. {Government grants and research dollars}.:naughty: I also do not intend to call into question ones convictions. But, just accepting one point of view, based on emotion or other coconscious, is not helping. While I do believe most Global Warming supporters do just that, not all have. There are some good folks out there doing some good work. Trouble is many exploit the work for there own gains {money and/or prestige}:evil: . Anything or anyone threatens it is labeled a threat and attacked accordingly, bringing the masses along with emotional rhetoric. {I am not the one screaming where all going to die:rant: }

 

For example,

 

In May of 1996, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change {IPCC}, presented a draft of its report in December 1995, and it was approved by the delegations. However, when the printed report appeared in May 1996, substantial changes and deletions had been made to the body of the report to make it conform to the Policymakers Summery. Among them, two key paragraphs written by the scientists, and agreed to, were deleted.

 

They said:

 

1. None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.

 

2. No study to date had positively attributed all or part of the climate change to …man-made causes.

 

Hummmm….. ;) A lot of credibility in that report. I wonder who took it upon themselves to correct it and why???

 

I have read many reports and studies that show this apparent correlation. As a skeptic, the first question that comes to mind is, does temperature follow Co2 or Co2 follow temperature? Or are they a result of something else happening? I simply ask show me the study that says a 200,000 year old ice core is not going to have the quantity of Co2 change over time {not to mention pressure}. It is a fact that water is a Co2 sink. Ice is water below 32 deg, another fact. What is their correlation? Does the trapped air simply remain inert, or does the sink processes continue at a much slower rate. I have not found that answer in any unbiased report that didn’t start out with {if we don’t do something we going to distroy the planet} preface. They all seem to gloss over the {frozen in time part} as a fact that nothing changes. I also find it odd that the very graphs that support global warming show the sudden temperature spike happening 10,000 years ago. If I recall correctly, there were no cars, no planes, and no trains. Maybe it was natural, maybe it wasn’t. Maybe the data is flawed. Maybe Co2 has a shelf life in ice. But nothing to date can definitively point to a cause, however we are to accept it as FACT it is happening BECAUSE of us.

 

And yes, I am big enough to admit there are just as many of those on the other side of the issue. I give them the same consideration. Are you big enough to accept the fact you may have been duped?

 

Sadly I think most of the Global Warmer's have fallen for the {cart before the horse scenario}. They have accepted global warming as a man made issue. I haven’t accepted it’s even an issue yet. Any study of written history shows many climate changes in the last 5,000 years. Some suttle, some not. Some permanet, other temporary. Even more and more drastic before man walked on two legs. Beyond that, much if not all of the “ground” we stand on was the bottom of a sea at one time, is that going to be our fault when it happens again?

 

One last factoid, any modeling, predicting is based on a set of facts/data. Those facts/data are based on what has happened and compared to recent/current events. What they can not do is predict events that have not taken place. So, missing these future events, projections follow the prevailing curve. If it is heading down, the projection is a continual down curve. {Remember that ice age thing bout 30 years ago} Conversely, if heading up, the projection is up.

 

Simply put; to predict my life time income, based on the position I started, and how much my raise was in my first year of employment is possible, ONLY if there are not ANY other prevailing events and everything remains static. Any change in employment {position, company}, health, declining sales, automation, etc. makes that projection worthless. Well nothing is static, and it is always changing. I am not sure it I find it scary or foolish someone would expect different. Or that one could control it.

 

Now if by chance someone has some information that clearly shows 1} we are out of our natural cycle, and 2} a .7 {point 7}% contribution has pushed us out of that cycle, please by all means share it. {sarcasm - If not sit down and enjoy the ride. :D }

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to put in my 2 cents worth, but I only found a penny. The Earth is getting warmer & we can blame the Sun. The Earth is getting dimmer, & we can blame particulates in the air.

http://hypography.com/forums/earth-science/6279-global-dimming.html?highlight=global+dimming

Given the butterfly effect we haven't a snow-ball's chance in hell of "controlling" such a large scale complex system.

;) :naughty:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard on a radio talk program that said that the ice caps of the Earth and Mars were both melting. I did a little research and this is indeed the case. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm

 

Since there are no humans on Mars yet, and very little greenhouse gas, maybe the solar energy ouptut is more important than expected with respect to global warming.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard a theory the other day that cyclic warming and cooling of the Earth might also be attributable to 'clouds' of dust and gas that our solar system periodically goes through in our trip around the galactic center.

 

Even a very diffuse cloud of this stuff will have an effect on the amount of energy reaching Earth from the sun.

 

Whether it is true or not, pumping carbon that have been trapped under the surface for millions of years into the atmosphere can not be a good thing. We should be prudent and assume we are causing great damage, because chances are we are right - but the risk of assuming we are not and continuing the way we do, is simply too great.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

This just in:

The meltdown of Greenland's ice sheet is speeding up, satellite measurements show. Data from a US space agency (Nasa) satellite show that the melting rate has accelerated since 2004. If the ice cap were to completely disappear, global sea levels would rise by 6.5m (21 feet).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4783199.stm

 

:doh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...