|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I said that the US tried to ruin plans to get all the industrial countrys to cap emmisions. which they did,which is why they were booed at. a disgrace! |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
what names? if you cant stand the heat...... world temperatures have risen 0.7C in the last 150 years,since we began burning fossil fuels and rapidly chopping down forests. thats a stone cold fact. what you are doing is taking some figures from a very short span in that 150 years,and using that put your spin on it. Thats called misinformation. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Lanikai, kahakai nani, aloha no au ia 'oe. A hui hou kakou. |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908 New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds ‘Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence’ By EPW Blog Monday, December 10, 2007 An inconvenient new peer-reviewed study published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology. Climate warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence: Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation. These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia). The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.” Co-author John Christy said: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.” Co-author S. Fred Singer said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface and thus the climate.” Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless. – but very costly. Now on the web at http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/200...c-10-2007.html Contact: Dr S Fred Singer, President, SEPP singer@SEPP.org 703-920-2744 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- EXPLANATION OF THE GRAPH: Scientists of NASA have discovered a positive trend in the intensity of the solar activity since 1980. The factor of variability is about 0.06 flares per year. The latter is similar to the annual variability of the tropospheric temperature on Earth, which has been 0.05 per year. In the graph, the green sharp line represents the number of solar flares per day, the blue line represents the variability in the tropospheric temperature on Earth, the dashed green straight line corresponds to the average of the tendency in the variability of solar irradiance per decade, and the blue dashed straight line denotes the median of the decadal tendency of the variability in the tropospheric temperature of Earth. I have noticed that the trend in the fluctuations of the solar activity and the trend in the variability of the tropospheric temperature on Earth are almost parallel one to another. Simultaneously, both trends are separated by an equalized interval. I think that the steadiness of the difference between the two trends corresponds to a difference between the Intensity of Solar Irradiance and the Tropospheric Temperature (0.06 - 0.05 = 0.01). It is evident that the equivalences between the variability of the tropospheric Temperature and the variability of the solar irradiance are directly related with the intensity of the incoming Solar Radiation. The latter includes all forms of radiation emitted by the Sun, for example, Infrared Radiation (Heat), light, UV radiation, X rays, gamma rays, etc. At present, we are experiencing a larger solar cycle (lasting about 100 years) that includes 10 cycles of 11 years each. In the graphic of the Geological Eras we can observe large fluctuations in the global temperature of Earth through millions of years. I do not know the point that the current tropospheric temperature fluctuations will reach, perhaps the fluctuations will stretch to standards similar or higher than the maximum values of precedent fluctuations, but I am not sure about that. NASA scientists elaborated a prediction about the next solar cycle of 11 years based on the observation of the past tendencies and on the direct influence that the previous cycles have had on the intensity of the following cycle. The intensity of the solar activity has been progressively increasing on every cycle. The implementation of the Kyoto’s Protocol will not solve the phenomenon of global warming; in the first place, because it does not depend absolutely of the human activities, but from natural factors. In the second place, because the concentration of Heat-Forcing gases in the atmosphere are not thermodynamically capable of store the density of heat registered in the last century. The variability in the tropospheric temperature on Earth depends on cosmic factors, like the increase in the intensity of Solar Radiation and of Intergalactic Cosmic Rays. The graph gives also a clear explanation about the global warming observed on other planets like Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and some satellites of giant planets. I HAVE BASED MY GRAPH ON ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC DATA SO FOR THE DRAWING AS FOR ITS INTERPRETATION. I EXTENSIVELY RECOMMEND YOU TO READ THE REPORT AT NASA'S SITE AND THE ARTICLE FROM SCIENCE MAGAZINE THAT I HAVE INCLUDED LIKE REFERENCES AT THE FOOT OF THE DIAGRAM. Author of this page: Nasif Nahle, biologist ------------------------------------------------------------------ Not so cut and dry once you see facts not presented by the "Union of Concerned Scientists", is it?
__________________
"Nothing cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you." - Woody Hayes |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
The Sand People are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers. All statements have been peer reviewed. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
The Sand People are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers. All statements have been peer reviewed. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Mahatma Gandhi |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Ahhh, thank you. I checked there, but I must have missed it.
__________________
The Sand People are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers. All statements have been peer reviewed. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Imagine if you kept track of the local high temperatures for the week and they turn out to be 66, 68, 72, 95, 74, 76, 77. If you look at the trend from Sun. to Wed. it's increasing. The same is true if you look from Thur. to Sat. In fact it's true if you use the whole dataset. However, using the same data you can select Wed (95) as the starting point to show that the recent trend has been one of cooling. That's the same trick used when arguing that there is a recent cooling or stabilizing trend. If you start measuring before or after 1998 (assuming you don't pick another exceptional value) that trend disappears. Quote:
As for Nahle, it's hard to dispute because I can't follow the point he's trying to make or how he's getting the numbers. I think he's trying to say that solar variability is closely tied to warming/cooling trends. That's never really been a question though. If that's his point and he concludes there is no anthropogenic impact, he's committing the fallacy of assuming a simple cause to a complex problem. Beyond that he's not an expert in the field so I certainly wouldn't count him as a credible source for original work. He may or may not be able to interpret existing data, but based on the conclusions he draws from the graph he provided I'd go with the latter. Either that or he's using different data.
__________________
Lanikai, kahakai nani, aloha no au ia 'oe. A hui hou kakou. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Lanikai, kahakai nani, aloha no au ia 'oe. A hui hou kakou. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Everytime they get shot down.
But when will they realise and listen? |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Just like to say thanks to Greenbean,hippie smell,and scottras for defending the facts and exposing the misinformations that a few people like to use. You do it so well. Wise guys.
Have a great christmas guys! |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
As I showed, people can pull information and data from hundreds of sources to "prove" what they believe. The information "proving" human caused global warming is no better than the information refuting it.
The Earth has varied in temperature since the beginning of time, and we are naive to believe the current temperature state is ideal. Get off the soapboxes and understand this: the prophets of doom have been ignored by rational individuals since humans began to speak. More crazy people predicting the end of the world will not change the minds of those who can see past the hype. The Earth has been and will continue to change. Humans adapt and change their ways. If a city floods, move to higher ground (I'm talking to you N.O.). If a previously frozen area thaws to allow crops and habitation, go there and make it useful. Last of all, stop complaining about things you cannot change.
__________________
"Nothing cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you." - Woody Hayes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
The Sand People are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers. All statements have been peer reviewed. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Gravity - proven The composition of air - proven Global warming - completely debatable. People need to stop acting like it is fact. It is not.
__________________
"Nothing cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you." - Woody Hayes |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
The Sand People are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers. All statements have been peer reviewed. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
"Strongly" is very subjective at this point. To me, the evidence "strongly" shows there is very little contribution from CO2, and that this is all part of the natural changes experienced by Earth.
Fear/drama/sensationalism sells. See: global COOLING in the 1970s. I'm not buying.
__________________
"Nothing cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you." - Woody Hayes |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
The Sand People are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers. All statements have been peer reviewed. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
In my home state, Texas, we have more problems in our southern city from pollution being BLOWN in from Mexico. I can see that with my own eyes when I am in the Big Bend. So how much information is being skewed because of winds from the atmosphere in countries with little or no pollution control?? Why is it our responsibility to do anything for other countries (CHINA cough cough) to do something to clean up THEIR act?? The whole "you first" game is an irresponsible attitude from ALL countries. The whole thing makes me think of a bunch of children arguing.....................................and the US has just become the world's scapegoat. Clean air is a good thing. The politics of it is the REAL polution.
__________________
Ars longa, vita brevis. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
The Sand People are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers. All statements have been peer reviewed. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
This is a joke isn't it?
"Global cooling had no where near the level of evidence or scientific acceptance that GW has. Also, the latest IPCC report calculated the probability that the current warming is entirely natural to be less than 5%. That is STRONG evidence." You put your faith in a UN political committee? Look how well they handle other activities. Why do you think they are right this time? |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Ars longa, vita brevis. |
|
|