open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked CERN: "Oops, cosmic rays do cause global warming."
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic

Nth Ares
Posted - 2011.09.03 07:35:00 - [31]
 

The problem with the global warming as a topic is that people can't seem to discuss it without getting religious about it. One side insists that man is going to make itself extinct in a few years unless we all "go green", the other refuses to believe that pollution has any effect on the Earth. These are both highly speculative and unproven beliefs, and I seriously wonder how much it has to do with the strength/weakness of the science versus how much each side just hates the "kind" of people they see on the other side.

Ademaro Imre
Caldari
Posted - 2011.09.03 22:01:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Taedrin


Cosmic rays cause global warming my ass. It's both the skeptics like you and the alarmists who make it so hard to do good science in this world, because you are both too busy taking things out of context for us to discover anything actually important.

The conclusion was that cosmic rays *COULD CONTRIBUTE* to global warming, and that further investigation was needed to determine exactly what roles cosmic rays play in cloud formation.

Seriously, you are almost as bad as the media reporters who claim that we've somehow exceeded the universal constant by shining light through a cold, dense gas - Or that we've managed to achieve FTL transmission of information through quantum teleportation (and causality be damned).


So - in order to do good science, you want these experiments stopped? When they only completed testing on the smallest particle sizes and have not even approached the end of the 2-4 year study?

Riedle
Minmatar
Paradox Collective
Posted - 2011.09.03 22:31:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: baltec1
Originally by: Riedle
Run away run away!

The sky is falling for nigh on 20 years now! lol

oh yeah, but it hasn't even been warming for the past 10

oops


You need to look at the last 200000 years to get the trend. The last 300ish years you will find a very large spike (in scientific terms). In the last 10 years we have seen record after record broken all over the planet but it is not evenly spread. For example the largest rises are at the poles while some places have seen a cooling trend because of global warming inpacting wind currents. Its a complicated matter and so easily miss-interpreted by people who don't want it to be true and people who make genuine mistakes.


Exactly. Look at the Mann Hockey stick as proof to how badly some people want to believe.
A fellow Canuck disproved it. (or exposed it if you prefer)

Taedrin
Gallente
Kushan Industrial
Posted - 2011.09.04 01:08:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Ademaro Imre
Originally by: Taedrin


Cosmic rays cause global warming my ass. It's both the skeptics like you and the alarmists who make it so hard to do good science in this world, because you are both too busy taking things out of context for us to discover anything actually important.

The conclusion was that cosmic rays *COULD CONTRIBUTE* to global warming, and that further investigation was needed to determine exactly what roles cosmic rays play in cloud formation.

Seriously, you are almost as bad as the media reporters who claim that we've somehow exceeded the universal constant by shining light through a cold, dense gas - Or that we've managed to achieve FTL transmission of information through quantum teleportation (and causality be damned).


So - in order to do good science, you want these experiments stopped? When they only completed testing on the smallest particle sizes and have not even approached the end of the 2-4 year study?


What part of "further investigation [is] needed to determine exactly what roles cosmic rays play in cloud formation" don't you understand?

On the contrary, I am most wholeheartidly in favor of all climate change research, whether or not the evidence such research produces implies humans cause global warming or not. In fact I would be ECSTATIC if human activities were not the cause of global warming - or even if they were only a minor contribution. This would mean that we could continue doing such things as use air conditioning, use computers, drive cars, own houses, etc etc...

Unfortunately the majority of the evidence points towards humans being a major contributor to global climate change. A lot of the experiments which DO conclude otherwise are done in very unscientific ways. For example: evading rigorous peer review by publishing in a scientific journal which has nothing to do with weather or climate, and instead publishing it in a journal about space photography which lacks the proper social network needed to apply a rigorous peer review for such a topic.

Believe you me, I hope these people would continue their research. I just wish people would stop taking the SLIGHTEST bit of evidence and trapiezing it around as infallible proof. Scientists spent a LOOONNNGG time collecting evidence before they concluded that humans *probably* cause global climate change.

baltec1
Posted - 2011.09.04 07:28:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Riedle


Exactly. Look at the Mann Hockey stick as proof to how badly some people want to believe.
A fellow Canuck disproved it. (or exposed it if you prefer)


Meanwhile climate data gathered via ice cores, satalite data, weather stations from across the globe and even hundreds of years worth of data collected by the royal navy from around the worlds oceans show that we are warming up and the chemical composition of the atmosphere is changing.

Riedle
Minmatar
Paradox Collective
Posted - 2011.09.04 11:56:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: baltec1
Originally by: Riedle


Exactly. Look at the Mann Hockey stick as proof to how badly some people want to believe.
A fellow Canuck disproved it. (or exposed it if you prefer)


Meanwhile climate data gathered via ice cores, satalite data, weather stations from across the globe and even hundreds of years worth of data collected by the royal navy from around the worlds oceans show that we are warming up and the chemical composition of the atmosphere is changing.


Right, so you are a believer. Thought so. The whole discreditation of the Mann hockey stick, if you even know what that is, was that the warming we have experienced is nothing out of the ordinary at all. Neither was the warming in the 1940's or the cooling in the 1970's or the cooling of the 2000's for that matter.

The midieval warming period was much warmer that it is now. Kind of hard to blame that on the ol' SUV

baltec1
Posted - 2011.09.04 14:27:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Riedle

Right, so you are a believer. Thought so. The whole discreditation of the Mann hockey stick, if you even know what that is, was that the warming we have experienced is nothing out of the ordinary at all. Neither was the warming in the 1940's or the cooling in the 1970's or the cooling of the 2000's for that matter.

The midieval warming period was much warmer that it is now. Kind of hard to blame that on the ol' SUV


But it is warmer than in the medieval warming period...

The oceans are also more acidic, ice shelves are much much smaller and desertification is increasing.

Riedle
Minmatar
Paradox Collective
Posted - 2011.09.04 20:52:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: baltec1
Originally by: Riedle

Right, so you are a believer. Thought so. The whole discreditation of the Mann hockey stick, if you even know what that is, was that the warming we have experienced is nothing out of the ordinary at all. Neither was the warming in the 1940's or the cooling in the 1970's or the cooling of the 2000's for that matter.

The midieval warming period was much warmer that it is now. Kind of hard to blame that on the ol' SUV


But it is warmer than in the medieval warming period...

The oceans are also more acidic, ice shelves are much much smaller and desertification is increasing.


Of course, we do not know is the MWP was warmer than it is today or not. We will never know for sure. Some people think it was warmer some people think it was colder.
However, the important part to acknowledge is that it got warmer and then colder all by itself with little to no influence from man. It always has it always will.

What more reasonable people are saying now is that the man may or may not be responsible for Global Warming, (now conveniently changed to 'climate change').
This is for many reasons that I will summarize into a list for you as I don't intend to waste my time explaining it all for you as I have done for many others so many times.

Carbon Dioxide is a very minor Global warming gas.
Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
The Sun is a much larger driver of climate change.
particulate matter in the atmosphere is a larger driver of climate change
Carbon dioxide is necessary for plant growth
we cannot measure the premodern era temperatures accurately.
The 'computer models' purported to simulate and forecast global temperatures have turned out to be laughably wrong.

etc etc

there are many more but I am short on time and have to leave

baltec1
Posted - 2011.09.05 08:44:00 - [39]
 

Edited by: baltec1 on 05/09/2011 08:45:31
Originally by: Riedle


Of course, we do not know is the MWP was warmer than it is today or not. We will never know for sure.




We have very accurate temperature data going back 600,000 years thanks to ice cores.



Originally by: Riedle

Carbon Dioxide is a very minor Global warming gas.


True but we are producing vast quatities of it

Originally by: Riedle

Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.



It is when you produce too much of it. Not only is it a greenhouse gas but when it disolves in water it becomes acidic which is harmfull to sea life and also causes faster erosion in rock such as limestone.

Originally by: Riedle

The Sun is a much larger driver of climate change.


All evidence says that it is not the main driving force and if it was, why is the planet warming while the sun is cooling?

Originally by: Riedle
particulate matter in the atmosphere is a larger driver of climate change


If this were true we would be seeing a gradual cooling of global temperatures not warming.

Originally by: Riedle
Carbon dioxide is necessary for plant growth


This is not as true as you would think. Yes they need it but too much casuses issues and they can only absorb so much.

Originally by: Riedle
we cannot measure the premodern era temperatures accurately.


Yes we can. We have accurate tempeature and atmospheric data going back 600,000 years thanks to ice cores and geological records (although nowhere near as good) give a good idea of temperature going back over a billion years.

Originally by: Riedle
The 'computer models' purported to simulate and forecast global temperatures have turned out to be laughably wrong.


Computer simulations are very accurate when it comes to global temperatures and have made several predictions on volcanic impacts upon global temperatures with a 100% success record and to date, they have predicted everything correctly. They only have issues with local weather preditions due to the complicated way weather interacts with itself and sea/land masses.


Riedle
Minmatar
Paradox Collective
Posted - 2011.09.05 11:47:00 - [40]
 


Quote:
We have very accurate temperature data going back 600,000 years thanks to ice cores.


How would we even know that? We can try and extrapolate temperatures by proxy but we cannot even directly measure them obviously so the accurate records are guesses about generalities.

Quote:
True but we are producing vast quatities of it


It is a bit player in the atmosphere.


Quote:
All evidence says that it is not the main driving force and if it was, why is the planet warming while the sun is cooling?


Well obviously you never read the article in the OP. Read that and try again.
If you are such an admirer of science why do you even refuse to read opposing theories?
Oh that's right - it's a belief system for you.

Quote:
If this were true we would be seeing a gradual cooling of global temperatures not warming.


uhh, no. We are emitting less particulate matter now than we were due to much better methods of using coal, for example to power our electrical plants.
The pollution per kilowatt has come down quite a lot.

Quote:
This is not as true as you would think. Yes they need it but too much casuses issues and they can only absorb so much.


Is that right? lol

Quote:
Yes we can. We have accurate tempeature and atmospheric data going back 600,000 years thanks to ice cores and geological records (although nowhere near as good) give a good idea of temperature going back over a billion years.


We have a grasp on the general thanks to ice cores and geological data. To combine that with 'accurate' 20th century records is a fools errand.

Quote:
Computer simulations are very accurate when it comes to global temperatures and have made several predictions on volcanic impacts upon global temperatures with a 100% success record and to date, they have predicted everything correctly. They only have issues with local weather preditions due to the complicated way weather interacts with itself and sea/land masses.


Riiight... lol I was in the AGW game earlier than you I guess.

Here is a good starting place for you if you are really interested in what is going on

baltec1
Posted - 2011.09.05 14:28:00 - [41]
 

Edited by: baltec1 on 05/09/2011 14:30:03
Originally by: Riedle



How would we even know that? We can try and extrapolate temperatures by proxy but we cannot even directly measure them obviously so the accurate records are guesses about generalities.


Yes we can see what temperature it was. You see, when the ice is formed it traps air making in effect a time capsule of the atmosphere. Now the air has a different chemical makeup depending upon the temperature. Scientists can measure the levels of two types of oxygen to get an exact temperature level at the time the snow was compacted into ice.



Originally by: Riedle

It is a bit player in the atmosphere.



It is the primary greenhouse gas the keeps the Earth warm


Originally by: Riedle

Well obviously you never read the article in the OP. Read that and try again.
If you are such an admirer of science why do you even refuse to read opposing theories?
Oh that's right - it's a belief system for you.


I think you need to go read the third link again.


Originally by: Riedle

uhh, no. We are emitting less particulate matter now than we were due to much better methods of using coal, for example to power our electrical plants.
The pollution per kilowatt has come down quite a lot.


Which has resulted in higher temperatures across europe as less partical matter is released. Also after 9/11 all air traffic was grounded across US airspace. This resulted in higher temperatures across the continent. If global dimming due to partical ejection into the antmosphere was indeed a more powerfull force then we would be seeing a cooling trend not a warming.


Originally by: Riedle

Is that right? lol


Yes, you learn this in basic biology


Originally by: Riedle

We have a grasp on the general thanks to ice cores and geological data. To combine that with 'accurate' 20th century records is a fools errand.




see first reply


Originally by: Riedle

Riiight... lol I was in the AGW game earlier than you I guess.




You mean back when satalite data was giving the wrong reading due to a misscalculation to include orbit decay? Yea they fixed that in the late 70s.

I sujest you go read up on the climate impact predictions report on the Mount Pinatubo eruption made by climate models.

Also, thanks for the link but I like to get my info from scientific papers rather than blogs on the internet and badly biased "news" reports.

Riedle
Minmatar
Paradox Collective
Posted - 2011.09.05 15:00:00 - [42]
 



Quote:
Yes we can see what temperature it was. You see, when the ice is formed it traps air making in effect a time capsule of the atmosphere. Now the air has a different chemical makeup depending upon the temperature. Scientists can measure the levels of two types of oxygen to get an exact temperature level at the time the snow was compacted into ice.


Right, they take an indirect data source and guestimate what the temperature was. They have no way to take a direct temperature reading like we have had in the 20th century. Two very different methods used to describe the same thing should never be used on the same graph. basic science 101.

Quote:
It is the primary greenhouse gas the keeps the Earth warm


Notsureifserious...
If so you have A LOT of work to do my friend. Water vapour plays a MUCH larger role and that is just the gasses. Cloud cover makes up an eve larger role than gasses.


Quote:
Which has resulted in higher temperatures across europe as less partical matter is released. Also after 9/11 all air traffic was grounded across US airspace. This resulted in higher temperatures across the continent. If global dimming due to partical ejection into the antmosphere was indeed a more powerfull force then we would be seeing a cooling trend not a warming.


Umm... this suggests exactly what I have been saying. There was MUCH more particulate matter in the atmosphere from anthopenic sources in the 1970's than today. In the 1970's it was cooler than today. This suggests that particulate matter in the atmosphere plays a much larger role in climate than does c02. lol


Quote:
see first reply

see first response


Quote:
Also, thanks for the link but I like to get my info from scientific papers rather than blogs on the internet and badly biased "news" reports


A true believer! lol That 'blog' is run by Dr. Roy Spencer. he happens to RUN the satellites that you pretend to know so much about.

lol

FAIL

you keep believing I and others will keep reading the real science.

lols

baltec1
Posted - 2011.09.05 16:05:00 - [43]
 

Edited by: baltec1 on 05/09/2011 16:06:58
Edited by: baltec1 on 05/09/2011 16:05:15
Originally by: Riedle


Quote:
Yes we can see what temperature it was. You see, when the ice is formed it traps air making in effect a time capsule of the atmosphere. Now the air has a different chemical makeup depending upon the temperature. Scientists can measure the levels of two types of oxygen to get an exact temperature level at the time the snow was compacted into ice.


Right, they take an indirect data source and guestimate what the temperature was. They have no way to take a direct temperature reading like we have had in the 20th century. Two very different methods used to describe the same thing should never be used on the same graph. basic science 101.




Wrong again. You get the exact temperature readings because the levels of oxygen 18 are directly impacted by temperature.

As for the CO2 comments, please go look up the impact large amounts of CO2 have has on venus.

Riedle
Minmatar
Paradox Collective
Posted - 2011.09.05 21:44:00 - [44]
 


Quote:
Wrong again. You get the exact temperature readings because the levels of oxygen 18 are directly impacted by temperature.


k, what part are you not getting? They can look at proxies - in this case as you say with oxygen 18 and make inferences about what the temperatires may have been to produce that but they are guestimates and are not direct measurements. This is not a difficult assertion to accept unless it impacts a belief system you are uncomfortable in accepting.

Quote:
As for the CO2 comments, please go look up the impact large amounts of CO2 have has on venus.


Thanks for proving my point. Exactly how many people live on Venus?

baltec1
Posted - 2011.09.05 22:41:00 - [45]
 

Edited by: baltec1 on 05/09/2011 22:58:15
Originally by: Riedle


k, what part are you not getting? They can look at proxies - in this case as you say with oxygen 18 and make inferences about what the temperatires may have been to produce that but they are guestimates and are not direct measurements. This is not a difficult assertion to accept unless it impacts a belief system you are uncomfortable in accepting.


It is you who is not getting it. Oxygen 18 levels are directly impacted by temperature. Therefor if we know how much oxygen 18 there is we know just warm or cold the climate is. The chemestry does not change.


Originally by: Riedle

Thanks for proving my point. Exactly how many people live on Venus?


No you missed the point I was making entirely. Because of CO2 the temperature on venus is hot enough to melt lead. Itis an example of how powerfull it can be in response to your rather silly claims that it is a reletivly harmless gas without the power to impact the planet.


Riedle
Minmatar
Paradox Collective
Posted - 2011.09.06 16:22:00 - [46]
 



Quote:
It is you who is not getting it. Oxygen 18 levels are directly impacted by temperature. Therefor if we know how much oxygen 18 there is we know just warm or cold the climate is. The chemestry does not change.


Nope, sorry. They look at Oxygen 18 as a proxy to estimate precipitation temperature to then extrapolate the atmospheric temperature. It is a guestimate. At the end of the day, a totally different method than direct measurement of the temperature. They should not be used side by side in a graph using these two very different methods. Simple.


Quote:
No you missed the point I was making entirely. Because of CO2 the temperature on venus is hot enough to melt lead. Itis an example of how powerfull it can be in response to your rather silly claims that it is a reletivly harmless gas without the power to impact the planet.


How much more c02 is on Venus compared to Earth? lol
Oh and how much closer is Venus to the Sun than the Earth? lols


baltec1
Posted - 2011.09.06 21:02:00 - [47]
 

Edited by: baltec1 on 06/09/2011 22:35:43
Originally by: baltec1
Originally by: Riedle


Nope, sorry. They look at Oxygen 18 as a proxy to estimate precipitation temperature to then extrapolate the atmospheric temperature. It is a guestimate. At the end of the day, a totally different method than direct measurement of the temperature. They should not be used side by side in a graph using these two very different methods. Simple.


They can be used side by side in a graph due to the fact they are very accuratly measured and hold true. There is a direct impact on the amount of oxygen 18 and temperature which can be accuratly measured. Of corse we havent even added in the results of ice crystals, pollon, chemical composition of the air ect which all can be used. Put it all together and we can get a very good idea of what was going on at the time the ice formed. There are far more ways to find out temperature than just using a mercury thermometer.

Originally by: Riedle

How much more c02 is on Venus compared to Earth? lol
Oh and how much closer is Venus to the Sun than the Earth? lols




It was volcanic activity not the sun that caused the runaway warming on venus and the proxcimity of the sun should infact act as a scrubber and remove CO2. You should look up these things before putting your foot in it.

baltec1
Posted - 2011.09.06 22:35:00 - [48]
 

Edited by: baltec1 on 06/09/2011 22:34:59
bah double post

Riedle
Minmatar
Paradox Collective
Posted - 2011.09.07 12:46:00 - [49]
 

Quote:
It was volcanic activity not the sun that caused the runaway warming on venus and the proxcimity of the sun should infact act as a scrubber and remove CO2. You should look up these things before putting your foot in it.


my foot in it? lol
Just giving you an education, son

So your contention now is that it is hot on Venus because of it's atmopheric conditions and not due to it's proximity to the sun?

yikes. ok...

Then I guess it's only cold on Neptune cause there ain't enough c02 in it's atmosphere?
How am I doing?

:)


jason hill
Caldari
Clan Shadow Wolf
Fatal Ascension
Posted - 2011.09.07 15:22:00 - [50]
 

my 2 cents .. I`m not in denial that climate change is a real phenomina. but dont we all live in a natural state of climate change anyway ? summer /winter ...the thing that strikes me is that if one looks at medeival history one would see that this is a natural occurance in the uk in medival times the uk used to grow grapes in the southern part of england ...we still cannot do this to this day ..because of climate change .. we werent pumping out c02 then Laughing then again in a few hundred years later the thames freezed over... so much so that peeps could skate on it ...again c02 emissions ? i think not .
if we are living through a time of great uncertancy then why is that two of the planets biggest polluters (india &china ) allowed to ignore global agreements yet the rest of us in the western hemishere have to abide by all these carbon taxes to pay for all the alledged damage that these countries are commiting in the name of climate change .

im sorry ...but i think that its just one big massive band wagon that certain peeps in the scientific community are jumping on to keep thier grants going and the poloticians use to extort even more money in various forms of taxes form the masses ...
my 2 cents

baltec1
Posted - 2011.09.07 16:54:00 - [51]
 

Edited by: baltec1 on 07/09/2011 16:59:37
Originally by: Riedle


my foot in it? lol
Just giving you an education, son

So your contention now is that it is hot on Venus because of it's atmopheric conditions and not due to it's proximity to the sun?

yikes. ok...

Then I guess it's only cold on Neptune cause there ain't enough c02 in it's atmosphere?
How am I doing?

:)





Badly.

Lets start with Mercury. Now the day side is 430°C which very very hot. At night temperatures drop to -163 °C. A hell hole with no atmosphere, this is what the sun can do at this orbit.

The average temperature on Venus is 460°C. Planet wide both day and night. This means the the planet second furthest from the sun is hotter than the closest and take in that word. The average temperature both day and night. It is impossible for the sun to be the reason for venus being what it is.

Not only this, but the atmosphere is increadably reflective so the energy of the sun is also diminished as a large chunk is reflected back into space. Venus is a fine example of catastrophic golbal warming caused by c02.


Originally by: jason hill
in the uk in medival times the uk used to grow grapes in the southern part of england ...we still cannot do this to this day ..because of climate change


Just to point out. There are scottish vineyards.

Riedle
Minmatar
Paradox Collective
Posted - 2011.09.07 18:47:00 - [52]
 

Edited by: Riedle on 07/09/2011 18:47:22
Mercury doesn’t even have an atmosphere for all intents and purposes. It’s front side is exposed to the sun and the back side is practically exposed to the cold vacuum of space. See if you actually knew what it is you are talking about you would know this.

Here are some more facts for you
CO2 makes up 0.0360% of the Earth’s atmosphere
Co2 makes up 96.5 % of Venus’ atmosphere – no one is saying anything of the sort is going to happen here on Earth so while you are correct that Venus holds it heat in very well it’s because almost the whole atmosphere on Venus is pure Co2 – lol
Co2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is, by contrast, a trace gas. Even the worst case scenario of increases will barely move this if at all.

So you comparing the two is an exercise for the brain dead.

Sorry but I am not brain dead so you are going to have to try harder.

baltec1
Posted - 2011.09.07 21:06:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: Riedle
Edited by: Riedle on 07/09/2011 18:47:22
Mercury doesn’t even have an atmosphere for all intents and purposes. It’s front side is exposed to the sun and the back side is practically exposed to the cold vacuum of space. See if you actually knew what it is you are talking about you would know this.

Here are some more facts for you
CO2 makes up 0.0360% of the Earth’s atmosphere
Co2 makes up 96.5 % of Venus’ atmosphere – no one is saying anything of the sort is going to happen here on Earth so while you are correct that Venus holds it heat in very well it’s because almost the whole atmosphere on Venus is pure Co2 – lol
Co2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is, by contrast, a trace gas. Even the worst case scenario of increases will barely move this if at all.

So you comparing the two is an exercise for the brain dead.

Sorry but I am not brain dead so you are going to have to try harder.



According to you c02 is a harmless gas and the sun the the real powerhouse. Granted I gave you the most extream example but untill now, you didn't think co2 was a factor even on venus. I am also not sure what you are trying to say about Mercury.

It is quite clear you do not have a great grasp on the science or many of the facts on this subject.

Brisco County
The Shadow Plague
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2011.09.08 05:44:00 - [54]
 

The problem with global warming as a topic is that there are scientific "facts" on both sides of the discussion, leading people to basically pick whichever argument reinforces their beliefs, not necessarily picking the one that puts forth a sounder argument.

Riedle
Minmatar
Paradox Collective
Posted - 2011.09.08 12:16:00 - [55]
 

Edited by: Riedle on 08/09/2011 12:18:35
Edited by: Riedle on 08/09/2011 12:17:44
Quote:
According to you c02 is a harmless gas and the sun the the real powerhouse. Granted I gave you the most extream example but untill now, you didn't think co2 was a factor even on venus. I am also not sure what you are trying to say about Mercury.


Co2 is quite clearly a harmless gas on the earth precisely because it's concentration is 0.036% of the atmosphere. Also, plants need it to respirate.
All the elements ever discovered by man are toxic in the right concentration.

We are talking about global warming on earth, right? That you have to travel to another planet with no humans on it to say how bad global warming is says all that needs to be said really.

I will repeat it for you: Co2 on the earth is a minor, bit player on the Global warming scene. It’s just a fact. Water vapour and cloud cover are much, much more important.

This CERN article is talking about cloud cover for example. Dr. Roy Spencer, an accredited Climatologist who used to be in charge of the NASA satellites who measure the earth’s temperature says the same thing and has in fact written a book in the very subject under the hypothesis that the AGW computer ‘models’ that have been proven to be so utterly, consistently incorrect have been incorrect precisely because the effect of C02 was over-estimated and the effect of the changes in average cloud cover so far, pretty much ignored.

This CERN study appears to back up his hypothesis even as it does so apologetically. This is how science works.

You have ‘faith’ in AGW caused by Co2 and I understand why this bothers you so. But if you just follow the science you will come to see that AGW is a tempest in a tea pot and it has a huge opportunity cost in that we could have better spent our environmental efforts on truly important things like preventing over fishing, bottom trawling on the oceans, creating and protecting more wildlife corridors, deforestation in poor countries, toxic pollution in our air, water and soil etc etc..

So I understant why you prefer to obfuscate but it doesn't do your 'argument' any favours.
You are arguiing from a position of faith and I am just following the facts wherever they take me.

durpa Taredi
Posted - 2011.09.09 16:45:00 - [56]
 

Oh God the stupid it burns.

Why does everyone think they are an expert on this and know something that the scientists who's job it is to study this have missed. People claiming to have 'researched' the topic, people pretending that its big news that water vapour accounts for most of the greenhouse effect. People claiming that because CO2 makes up a small proportion of the atmosphere it cant possibly have an effect, I pray to God that person doesn't have a job as a pharmacist.

And most of all people that link to physicsworld thinking it proves once and for all that it proves that the idea that burning billions of tons of fossil fuels and realising into the atmosphere can't possibly have bad effects without reading the link.


Pages: 1 [2]

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only