Disprove Global Warming!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
froglover007 said:
YOu can just read most newspapers to figure that one out.
Click to expand...

I don't know what's more depressing... you're dismissal of the only truly useful form of scientific discourse, you're dismissal of same and your approval of a hokey video on the web, or you're assertion that scientists are in some kind of global conspiracy.

Let me ask you something. With all the money being spent by "Big Oil" and Governments to 'deny' global warming, don't you think that any scientists that supported the notion that there was no global warming would have more money for research than anyone else? Don't you think that scientist would be pushed out in the limelight faster than Megan Fox at a Transformers premiere?

Please.

BTW: I know what holocene is, but apparently you don't. It's a made up name for the period that followed the last big ice age (the Wisconsin for those playing at home). I suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene for a good beginning article on the Holocene (including the climate).

Now, please, find some references to peer-reviewed papers that support your line of thinking.

Finally, do you really think that it is a waste of money to build wind farms and solar collectors and wave generators? I mean, energy without pollution? Is that really so bad?

Pollution does a lot more harm to humans than it even does to the environment. For example, I grew up in one of the top 3 refinery towns in the US. This town now has the largest refinery in North America. My best friend was asthmatic for his entire primary and secondary school life. He could not play sports, he could not ride a bicycle.

He moved to Oregon 4 years ago and hasn't had an asthma attack since.

So, what is so great about pollution that you want to keep it. Because that's what you are saying. When you say "we shouldn't be spending money on the global warming problem" what you are really saying is "I prefer pollution". So please explain that.
 
The "hoaky" videos as you describe them are made by a top professor and he has just as much significence as any pro global warming scientist does. I do not oppose wind farms or solar energy. I believe they are good ideas and I think that everyone should take steps to reduce the amount of pollution as this is harmful whether it causes warming or not. I also do not oppose newspapers or scientific journals. What I do oppose is the amount of bias in the newspapers and the press. I would be perfectly happy if the press would just show the other side of the argument. They treat global warming as if it is a proven fact and it isnt.
Another problem is the skewed graphing used as fact to predict the future of the earths climate. The way that the graphing works is by using a positive rather then a negative effect. In other words, the positive effect is that once it is started it will only speed up faster and faster so that global warming must be stopped immediately or it will only get worse and unfixable. The negative effect is that it will slow down slowly over time and gradually come down. The earth is affected on a negative basis, meaning that after Co2 emmisions have stopped the warming will slowly start to slow down and drop back into regular cycles. This means that even if global warming is true, it is not as irreversible as is stated.
 
Show me the research paper from this top professor. Where does he do his research?

Although I agree totally about the bias in newspapers and news reports... which, is of course, why I read the peer-reviewed articles.

Finally, you once again make claims. Please provide some research that shows global warming is negative feedback system vs. a positive feedback system.

To be perfectly honest, I wish global warming were a negative feedback system. I wish we knew that we didn't have anything to worry about. But 1) we really can't take that risk and 2) I have seen no research that indicates (even partially) that the claim is valid.
 
froglover007 said:
The "hoaky" videos as you describe them are made by a top professor and he has just as much significence as any pro global warming scientist does. I do not oppose wind farms or solar energy. I believe they are good ideas and I think that everyone should take steps to reduce the amount of pollution as this is harmful whether it causes warming or not. I also do not oppose newspapers or scientific journals. What I do oppose is the amount of bias in the newspapers and the press. I would be perfectly happy if the press would just show the other side of the argument. They treat global warming as if it is a proven fact and it isnt.
Another problem is the skewed graphing used as fact to predict the future of the earths climate. The way that the graphing works is by using a positive rather then a negative effect. In other words, the positive effect is that once it is started it will only speed up faster and faster so that global warming must be stopped immediately or it will only get worse and unfixable. The negative effect is that it will slow down slowly over time and gradually come down. The earth is affected on a negative basis, meaning that after Co2 emmisions have stopped the warming will slowly start to slow down and drop back into regular cycles. This means that even if global warming is true, it is not as irreversible as is stated.
Click to expand...

Who? Again, face value until I'm given a name or some more credentials...

That theory is all well and good as it does present an opposition to any catastrophe predicted. Still didn't see any proof...just an explanation.

What I didn't really get from the video is any evidence that global warming and all that is somehow false. I may be mistaken but the author himself said something along the lines that the projections are exaggerated and that a doubling of Co2 would produce a temp increase along the lines of .8-1.2 degrees Celsius...thats still a pretty large change in my book.
 
jpappy789 said:
Who? Again, face value until I'm given a name or some more credentials...

That theory is all well and good as it does present an opposition to any catastrophe predicted. Still didn't see any proof...just an explanation.

What I didn't really get from the video is any evidence that global warming and all that is somehow false. I may be mistaken but the author himself said something along the lines that the projections are exaggerated and that a doubling of Co2 would produce a temp increase along the lines of .8-1.2 degrees Celsius...thats still a pretty large change in my book.
Click to expand...
you are correct there. All that he is saying is that it isnt as bad as it seems. Also, man-made carbon still isnt in a larger percentile then natural sources, and it would therefore be a while before man-made carbon dioxide causes the total amount of Co2 to double.
 
If positive feedbacks decrease the response from 3.3 to 1 Watt, then warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would be almost 4 deg. C. That’s a lot of warming.

But if negative feedbacks dominate, and they increase that 3.3 Watts to, say, 3.7 Watts then there would only be 1 deg. C of warming with doubling of CO2.

Or, if (like our latest research suggests), the loss of radiant energy is as large as 6 Watts per degree of warming, then manmade global warming becomes only 0.6 deg. C.
Click to expand...

Heck of a lot smaller numbers...but then what? :huh:
 
froglover007 said:
you are correct there. All that he is saying is that it isnt as bad as it seems. Also, man-made carbon still isnt in a larger percentile then natural sources, and it would therefore be a while before man-made carbon dioxide causes the total amount of Co2 to double.
Click to expand...

But again, what is keeping us from trying to delay that point or stop it altogether?
 
Dr. Roy Spencer pH.D. University of Alabama

I love this line "
But you engineers are indeed correct: When we climate researchers talk about positive feedback, what we are really talking about (in electrical engineering terms) is weak negative feedback.
"

So, if you can't find evidence to support your theory, change the theory to support your evidence.

Since his website did not link to any peer-reviewed research, I did my own search.

There were three papers in the AMS Journals Online. Only one had a discussion of global warming and positive/negative feedback. That article was dated 1997 (before the current 10 hottest years on record.

I have no time to review the articles that reference Spencer's to see if they disprove or approve of his conclusion (if any). Here's the link, feel free.

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/....1175/1520-0477(1997)078<1097:HDITTF>2.0.CO;2

I'll ignore any blogs, websites, or other 'fluff' for something as important as this. If it's not peer-reviewed research, then no other scientist has ever had the chance to review the work and help Spencer determine if his methods, results, and conclusions are valid or not. That is why scientists insist on peer-review. It's not an attempt to 'suppress' ideas that do not match with our own, but a verification of the science... something that doesn't exist in newspaper, blogs, or even books.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom