This thread may go on forever. I think rational people can at least agree that it is impossible to disprove (or prove) anthropogenic global warming. I just wish it wasn't accepted as unassailable fact by so many.
Disprove Global Warming!!!
- Thread starter Inka4040
- Start date
- Status
I believe that the consequences of anthropogenic climate change are so great that whether or not it exists, it couldn't hurt to make the slow transition to completely clean fuels. There are better ways to make energy, and anything that burns lowers air quality, any way you cut it.
If the mere possibility exists, it requires mitigation, at the very least,
If the mere possibility exists, it requires mitigation, at the very least,
You must have read this...maybe not.
I still want facts, and a model that works. I thought that the investigation of regional cooling of the area southwest of India affecting sub-Saharan Africa was an excellent use of atmospheric modeling, and the model employed high-altitude effects as well.
This study disproved Al Gore's contention that the Sahel was suffering because of an increase in CO2, as well as proving that global warming was not the cause of the dropping of the African monsoon weather (dropping in geographic lattitude, that is), but regional cooling (as in the size of N. America) preventing the necessary summertime heat from doing its job and preventing it from forcing the mid-African weather systems further north. Hypothesis devised, facts gathered, experimentation conducted, conclusion firmly reached. It worked, and it was what we in a laboratory would call an "elegant solution". It was not trash science.
All laws are about control, whether they control a gov't. and keep it from exerting too much influence, or whether laws seek to modify behavior of the public at large...conspiracy? Usually not, unless the lawmakers have to disguise it. Cap and trade is a true tax, disguised in title, and a heavy tax at that. This cannot be refuted. Also, the campaign promise was to have these laws available for viewing by the public 5 work days before they are considered for vote...cap and trade is going to the floor while it is still being written. We the public are not being allowed to view it in its entirety before Congress starts debating its large number of demerits, and small number of pluses. It is as flawed as the trash science supporting it.
This leads us to what I consider the big problem with trash science and accompanying legislation. I am a huge supporter of renewable energy, renewable consumer manufacturing for our semi-closed system planet earth, as well as recycling (i.e., increasing the means by which we do it, and manufacturing to match it). These noble green goals get lumped into the same stinky quagmire along with anything supported by trash science, since legislators call all of them "green" topics. The good, honest scientific and green engineering efforts get lumped in with the trash science, and you can't convince the general public otherwise.
I fear that once the public in this country get stung by cap and trade, and reject the trash science supporting it, they will reject many other wholy worthwhile green endeavors with it. It will be like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
NA
Last edited:
How many claims of Al Gore's 'Inconvienient Truth were disproved? I lost count. But it does not seem to matter. Any one assertion that is refuted will be poo-pooed by the dominate culture. We must look at the big picture, you see.
Have you noticed that any climatic event that varies from the mean is blamed on man? If there is a record cold snap it is explained away as an indirect result of global warming. But I have noticed that as the Earth appears to be actually cooling in recent years the global warming lable has been adjusted to read 'global climate change'.
Have you noticed that any climatic event that varies from the mean is blamed on man? If there is a record cold snap it is explained away as an indirect result of global warming. But I have noticed that as the Earth appears to be actually cooling in recent years the global warming lable has been adjusted to read 'global climate change'.
Do you have a link to this article, or an author/title etc... All I was looking for in starting this thread was some scientific articles explaining the skeptic's point of view. For all of the arguing this thread has spawned, it has done little in means of its original purpose. I personally, would love to read that article, as I'm sure many others here would as well.
"That article?" You have to find this stuff in journals these days, and read a number of them to figure this out. Here's how:
Go to a university level research library. Look for the SCI (Science Citation Index). They may have an online free, or pay-for-use version. Your search terms if you want the knowledge:
1.) Dust surface radiative cooling
2.) Cloud nuclei insolation reflective cooling
3.) Visible moisture nuclei India Sahel monsoon
Look for abstracts regarding the Sahel with the first search terms. This will yield journal articles that will give you background information on how low altitude atmospheric contaminants affect the mid-Africa weather patterns. NOAA has some excellent articles regarding this; some of these even have some impressive graphics.
Regarding the second search terms, these will yield journal articles that talk about mid and high-altitude weather effects, namely how normal cloud nuclei (smaller airborne particulates) used to be the norm in producing visible clouds, and how larger airborne particulates (produced by dirtier industries) are changing continental and overwater cloudscapes. Insolation is a geologic and meteorologic term, short for "incoming solar radiation."
Finally, the third search terms. This puts it all together. You end up with articles detailing how the low altitude effects were smothered by man-made effects from rising industrial pollution from India, and how increased cloud cover seeded by pollution borne by mid to high-altitude winds actually increased cloud cover over Africa, cooled enough of the continent to prevent the heating required to drive the seasonal monsoon belt into the Sahel...and hence, the increased desertification of that region.
Call me a geek, but whenever I find myself on a large collegiate campus, I like to visit the libraries. A former co-worker used to actually have climatologists for friends (he is far too smart for his current job)...so I had to ask how to find true scientific research regarding this. His big take...you can only find politics on the web, finding the results of true science requires research.
I used to use SCI a lot, so finding this wasn't as hard as I thought it might be, but it still wasn't easy. As well, you have to read. Research libraries usually do not let you check out journals in the same way you'd check out books, hence the gazillion photocopy machines they have on hand.
Also, I heard that NOVA actually made a program covering this, but I'd sure like to know the title...I understand it integrated all 3 topics that I described above into a comprehendable 1-hour show. Now THAT is an achievement. I also understand, though, that they made some claims regarding global cooling / heating and insolation that are untrue (i.e., did not use a full atmosphere model), but in spite of the political slant (i.e., a little trash science made its way into the program), it is supposed to be a pretty good show about the sub-Saharan regional climate change problem, and it's a big region.
NA
Last edited:
same people running around ranting about global warming are just barrying all theair trash and waste in the ground, how good is that i think we ve heated this world by putting trash in the ground just my city alone barries 2 billion tons a year , ahhahahah ah ah
And besides all the rockets and space ships and satellites that have gone thru the atmosphere maybe that s what the holes are from , ahhahah to many questions no real answers from scientists its kinda like 911. you can ask what about this or that?
they just say no this is the fact , but how you believe that when they dont study or test other means to the end ,?,
anyway sun radiation is the best cause of global warming ive ever heard or read bout, if you look at a graph between radiation levels of the sun the temperatures of our planet its so direct of a line together. maybe that why they dont see it ? the graph of co2 and world temp is off by 300 to 500 years at times . so at least stop pickin on co2 ..... After all the ocean emits 3 times more co2 than humans create, at any given moment thats natural, so why do they look at co2 as the crook. lol whos contoling the fear ??? i mean the us military burn s more phosil fuels a day than everyone in america probably maybe they just want it all for them selves.!!!!!!!!
stop the dam panic already.
And besides all the rockets and space ships and satellites that have gone thru the atmosphere maybe that s what the holes are from , ahhahah to many questions no real answers from scientists its kinda like 911. you can ask what about this or that?
they just say no this is the fact , but how you believe that when they dont study or test other means to the end ,?,
anyway sun radiation is the best cause of global warming ive ever heard or read bout, if you look at a graph between radiation levels of the sun the temperatures of our planet its so direct of a line together. maybe that why they dont see it ? the graph of co2 and world temp is off by 300 to 500 years at times . so at least stop pickin on co2 ..... After all the ocean emits 3 times more co2 than humans create, at any given moment thats natural, so why do they look at co2 as the crook. lol whos contoling the fear ??? i mean the us military burn s more phosil fuels a day than everyone in america probably maybe they just want it all for them selves.!!!!!!!!
stop the dam panic already.
Scientific data shows that global warming is certainly a fact, how it's caused however is of debate. Although some claim humans are a large cause or even the primary cause of global warming, in the past 1-2 years much scientific data has shown that humans instead have a very small impact on the environment when it comes to global warming.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
http://environment.ncpa.org/news/warming-caused-by-natural-cycle-not-humans
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
http://environment.ncpa.org/news/warming-caused-by-natural-cycle-not-humans
There is just as much so called "scientific data" that show s the exact opposite....I think we are using extremely short term conclusions with unprovable facts of centuries to decide what is happening...
- Status
