Jump to content

Fairweather

Members
  • Posts

    8895
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Everything posted by Fairweather

  1. http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/co2_glochng.pdf Is Global Warming Caused by Rising CO2? No tangible, physical evidence exists that proves a cause–and–effect relationship between global climate changes and atmospheric CO2. The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that CO2 has increased doesn’t prove that CO2 has caused global warming. As shown by isotope measurements from ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica and by measurements of atmospheric CO2 during El Nino warming oceans emit more CO2 into the atmosphere during climatic warming. The ice core records indicate that after the last Ice Age, temperatures rose for about 800 years before atmospheric CO2 rose, showing that climatic warming causes CO2 to rise, not vice versa. No doubt exists that the present high levels of atmospheric CO2 are the result of human input, but the contribution that it makes to global warming remains to be proven. Assertions by the ICPP and other CO2 proponents As seen in the previous discussion, no correlation exists between atmospheric CO2 and the many global climate changes that have occurred over the past several centuries and the past 15,000 years. In a Newsweek article (August 13, 2007), author Sharon Begley states “Current warming is 10 times greater than ever before seen in the geologic record. The chance that warming is natural is less than 10 percent.” Every competent geologist knows that this statement is totally false and contrary to vast amounts of well-established data. Global climates have warmed about 4-7° F in a series of ~30 year cycles since the Little Ice Age 400 years ago, all with no correlation with atmospheric CO2, yet the author claims that “the pattern of warming has a human fingerprint.” What is needed to bring clarity to the issue is not rhetoric like this, but a hard look at the huge amount of geologic data that shows we’ve had climate changes 20 times greater than the past century in a fourth of the time. In February 2007, The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a summary report for policymakers by 33 authors. The panel conducted no research of its own but relied on previously published material. Neither the summary report nor the earlier full report contains any tangible, physical, cause-and-effect evidence that global warming is caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The IPCC conclusions are based on the empirical observation that global temperatures have risen during the past century and CO2 has also risen and on computer model simulations that assume global temperatures will rise with increasing atmospheric CO2. Because the coincidence of increase in global temperature and atmospheric CO2 is an empirical relationship, that does not in itself prove that rising CO2 is causing global warming. Nonetheless, the IPCC summary report for policymakers concludes that “Most of the observed increases in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” They also concluded that “The widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past fifty years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone.” Curiously, they later state the “It is very unlikely that climate changes of a least the seven centuries prior to 1950 were due to variability generated within the climate system alone. A significant fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphere interdecadal temperature variability over those centuries is very likely attributed to volcanic eruptions and changes in solar irradiance, and it is likely that anthropogenic forcing contributed to the early 20th century warming evident in these records.” The report does not elaborate on why, if solar irradiance or volcanic eruptions were responsible for earlier climate changes, they could not also be the cause of changes since 1950, nor how anthropogenic emissions could be responsible for early 20th century warming before CO2 emissions began to soar after 1945.
  2. NASA too? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/?feat=home_top5_read
  3. Dinosaur bones.
  4. [video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPUpIBWGp8
  5. Fairweather

    NEWS

    Fox, BBC, NPR, KIRO Radio, KCPQ.
  6. Fairweather

    so...

    You rented a house to JosepH?
  7. Fairweather

    NEWS

    That picture represents the conflict at the core of my being.
  8. That's a plus.
  9. No piece of any ice shelf has ever broken off. The Earth and its climate remain static. Forever. What was your grade in U.S. history?
  10. Fairweather

    NEWS

    Remove the dam.
  11. Fairweather

    NEWS

    The order to begin the project was signed by Woodrow Wilson--Democrat--in 1913. http://www.sierraclub.org/ca/hetchhetchy/timeline.asp
  12. Fairweather

    NEWS

    He was too busy plagiarizing effete Frenchies, dodgin conventions, and bangin his slaves.
  13. Meanwhile, here's a pretty good editorial: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8388485.stm
  14. You should take a look at Easterbrook's Mount Baker studies. But yes, I would miss our local glaciers terribly--not that this is relevant at all. As for soot/darkening vs CO2: The solutions are quite a bit different. Are you the least bit concerned that a scientist who feeds his data directly to the IPCC is admitting that there is a problem with the data--and has been trying to hide it? Ivan claimed he wanted a "conversation", but has yet to respond in-kind. At this point, I'll settle for an answer to the question in my last sentence.
  15. Guys like TTK have found a convenient lever for their agenda, and they won't let go easily:
  16. You sound kinda concerned. Been tested?
  17. You should take a look at Easterbrook's Mount Baker studies. But yes, I would miss our local glaciers terribly--not that this is relevant at all. As for soot/darkening vs CO2: The solutions are quite a bit different. Are you the least bit concerned that a scientist who feeds his data directly to the IPCC is admitting that there is a problem with the data--and has been trying to hide it?
  18. It's that last sentence which has us all concerned.
  19. Here ya go, my slobovian know-it-all: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070809172126.htm And here's the NASA study summary: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/04/050411135517.htm
  20. Ivan. You gonna ask me this again in a couple months? Where's the quid pro quo from cc.com's only libnontard?
  21. Not necessarily: http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/co2_glochng.pdf
  22. Yes. Did you know Tvash completed two full quarters at South Seattle Community College?
  23. CO2 may, in fact, be the cause--but to claim the science is settled to the same degree as, say, evolution or plate tectonics is ridiculous. Easterbrook thinks that solar output and natural decadal oscillations are largely to blame. I wouldn't be surprised if diminished albedo due to (anthropogenic)soot is a factor in glacial recession as well. There is a NASA study underway right now investigating this--which, of course, begs the question: Is this really settled?
  24. Oh dear. Now you're upset again. Was it the ego comment? :kisss:
×
×
  • Create New...