- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 34,971
- Reaction score
- 12,368
- Location
- Pennsylvania
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Quotes from Scientist that you will not address because only the liars of the IPCC and NASA matter.
Really, it seems to me that the only way to completely determine one way or another would be to:
Place temperature, pressure, energy, and molecular (as in, what molecules are in the area) sensors on a 25 meter (or would 250 meter be more reasonable?) spacing in a 3-D grid covering the entire surface of the earth and extending up to geosynchronous orbit.
Tie it to the Sats there with large ribbons.
Of gold foil covered cloth, to protect against sunlight.
Shiny.
Use data collected from such to prove or disprove theories as to how various gasses produced (or not) by man are causing an effect which the earth cannot correct for on its own, and without any other than very minor changes outside the normal shifts in temperature, atmospheric makeup, and such.
Hope that the sensors all stay where they are supposed to be, functioning normally, despite the normal (and drastically adverse to such a system) changes in weather around the globe.
Of course, you could use sensors in space, on the ground, and floating on balloons to do the same…to an extent.
But it wouldn’t be anywhere near as accurate…
Thoughts on my idea?
:mrgreen:
Quotes from Scientist that you will not address because only the liars of the IPCC and NASA matter.
The biggest problem most people have when talking about Global Warming is that they do not really comprehend that they are only talking about a theory.
Now Climate Change and Global Warming as a trend is a fact, that is known simply because ice sheets no longer cover huge areas of North America, Europe, and Asia. Nobody disputes that the Earth is growing warmer, and has been doing so since our most advanced tool was a rock.
However, Man Made Global Warming is simply a theory. It is no more of a fact then what the Universe was like before the Big Bang or the ultimate fate of the Universe ("Big Crunch" or "Big Freeze").
And the biggest problem for people like me in accepting that "Man Made Global Warming" is simply the small amount of true empirical data we have. Most of our "true" data really only dates back 100 years or so. We have some other data that goes back another 100-200 years beyond that, but it is spotty at best. Other climate speculations are just that, speculation.
However, we do know that during the last ice age, North Africa was a lush wetland. Death Valley was a massive lake at the time of the fall of the Roman Republic. And a huge number of paleolithic American Indian sites are inaccessable because they are now located under water, covered by the rising ocean level since the last ice age ended.
100 or so years of data is not enough to accurately determine facts in the cause and effect of something like the climate and weather patterns over the entire planet. And the fact that "Global Cooling" has become "Global Warming" has become "Climate Change" shows how little most scientists really understand such things, reguardless of what some want people to think.
To me, the only honest scientists are the ones that say "We do not know, but we suspect..." To me anybody that claims they know for sure is a liar.
If that is what you need to do, please let us know of your results. :mrgreen:
In the meantime for myself, I am satisfied with the findings by every scientific organization of National or International standing through decades of study as shown here:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/66084-global-warming-myth-59.html#post1058572693
No honest scientist will claim to know for certain anything.However nobody disputes greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere.Also nobody disputes man makes greenhouse gases that go into the atmosphere.
So if your going de despute man made global warming you are at least not saying it doesent exist but saying its not significant.
But I am not.
- I want to see:
- What their data was/is.
- Where and how they collected it.
- How and why they processed it as they did.
- Where their funding came/comes from.
- And, finally, I want to understand the math so that I can duplicate their findings myself.
I forgot that I need to invent a time machine so that I can put my previously mentioned climate monitoring system into place sometime around 1 million years ago.My suggestion then would be to get a copy of the all the studies referenced in the link below and study them and research their funding. You may find it a bit daunting to duplicate the decades of research, thousands of in the field data collections, and observations from space. But if you have a big enough budget and a scientific background perhaps you can duplicate their finding yourself. Of course if the scientific community is correct in their current findings, it will be too late for the earth to act upon your findings and you will have doomed future life on the planet.
Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
For myself, since I do not believe that every scientific organization of national or international standing on the planet have been conspiring for decades, I will go with their consensus.
Best of luck to you in your scientific endeavors! Hope you do not mind if we do not wait on you to take action to protect our environment from further degradation in the meantime.
Nasa does a pretty good job of explaining the science in layman's terms:
NASA - Global Warming
The EPA site does a solid job of breaking the state knowledge down into three categories:
- What's Known
- What's very likely
- What's not certain
State of Knowledge | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA
My suggestion then would be to get a copy of the all the studies referenced in the link below and study them and research their funding. You may find it a bit daunting to duplicate the decades of research, thousands of in the field data collections, and observations from space. But if you have a big enough budget and a scientific background perhaps you can duplicate their finding yourself. Of course if the scientific community is correct in their current findings, it will be too late for the earth to act upon your findings and you will have doomed future life on the planet.
Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
For myself, since I do not believe that every scientific organization of national or international standing on the planet have been conspiring for decades, I will go with their consensus.
Best of luck to you in your scientific endeavors! Hope you do not mind if we do not wait on you to take action to protect our environment from further degradation in the meantime.
Those are both good references. However, the first one still tries to absolutely link Global Warming with rising CO2 levels.
We had rising temperatures of a much larger scale between the end of the last ice age and the start of the industrial revolution, without such an increase in CO2 levels.
Yes we did have previous warming periods before the industrial revolution but they have been attributed to increased volcanic activity and the release of increased CO2. We have had no such increased volcanic activity during this warming period. But we have had man-made sources of CO2 added to the ambient levels that dwarf what the volcanoes released back then.
"Today we’re speaking with climate scientist Peter Huybers of Harvard. Dr. Huybers received a 2009 genius grant from the MacArthur Foundation. He spoke with EarthSky about why the last ice age ended 12,000 years ago.
Peter Huybers: I think ice ages are really the outstanding mystery in Earth sciences presently.
Scientists have scrutinized the evidence for ice ages in Earth’s past. Dr. Huyber’s recent research focused on one possible factor triggering the end of an ice age – volcanic activity.
Peter Huybers: The major finding was that there was a dramatic uptick in volcanic activity during the last deglaciation.
Volcanoes can cause carbon dioxide, or CO2 – a greenhouse gas – to increase in Earth’s atmosphere.
Twelve thousand years ago, volcanoes might have caused warming and melting ice. In some places on Earth, melting ice sheets might have taken a load off rock below. That might have increased volcanic activity even more – which means more CO2 – and more warming.
Peter Huybers: In so much as volcanoes played an important role in providing a feedback in past climate, we can then contrast that with the even much stronger control of CO2, which humans are exerting.
In other words, volcanoes at the end of the last ice age were releasing about three-tenths of a gigaton of CO2 each year. Today, humans are releasing about a hundred times more."
Peter Huybers: 'Ice ages are the outstanding mystery in Earth sciences' | EarthSky
I see you're still trying to get pigs to fly. :mrgreen:
LOL! Perhaps more open minded lurkers will be able to learn something. I have grandchildren, so its a more pressing topic to me than who is ahead a point or two in the most recent poll as far as who will be president in 2012.
I see you're still trying to get pigs to fly. :mrgreen:
So they both warm and cool the earth at the same time.
Thanks to you and various other poster's links, I've taken in some interesting information on the AGW/ACC issue lately.Not at the same time, but yes they can do either. Only problem is there has been no major volcano activity during this warming period.
Not at the same time, but yes they can do either. Only problem is there has been no major volcano activity during this warming period.
Or rather, the proof that some claim exists has come under suspicion.
I would not go as far as some, and claim the argument for doing X is completely dead…but I consider it damaged.
Of course, I am biased because I have always been skeptical of it.
Krakatoa? Pinitubo? Santorini? Tamboura and "The Year Without A Summer"? Toba?
The eruption lasted perhaps two weeks, but the ensuing "volcanic winter" resulted in a decrease in average global temperatures by 3 to 3.5 degrees Celsius for several years. Greenland ice cores record a pulse of starkly reduced levels of organic carbon sequestration. Very few plants or animals in southeast Asia would have survived, and it is possible that the eruption caused a planet-wide die-off.
Lake Toba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Toba eruprion is the one that pushed humans to the brink of extinction (some estimate as few as 14,000 humans were left before things got back to normal).
I would say those are pretty major.
So tell me, can you give some documentation of a volcano warming the Earth? Because you agree with something I said in sarcasm, and I have never seen anything to show that warming occurs after a volcano eruption.
Thanks to you and various other poster's links, I've taken in some interesting information on the AGW/ACC issue lately.
But not enough proof to counter my ingrained skepticism of the theory.
I view it as an example of the infamous “slippery slope” argument/fallacy.
Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If we don’t do X, Y1,Y2, and Y3, followed by ever increasing Y’s, will occur.
Now, I am aware some consider enough proof exists that not doing X will cause Y1, Y2, Y3…..and so on.
But I have not seen such.
Or rather, the proof that some claim exists has come under suspicion.
I would not go as far as some, and claim the argument for doing X is completely dead…but I consider it damaged.
Of course, I am biased because I have always been skeptical of it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?