Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Data from satellite observations "suggest that greenhouse models ignore negative feedback produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects" of human carbon dioxide emissions.
The journal authors "have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases."
For Fred Singer, a climatologist at the University of Virginia and another co-author, 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 and stalagmites . . . and published in hundreds of papers in peer reviewed journals."
How these cyclical climate take place is still unknown, 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 cloudiness, and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface and thus the climate."
Singer said at a recent National Press Club meeting in Washington that there is still no definite proof that humans can produce climate change.
The available data is ambiguous, Singer said: global temperatures, for example, rose between 1900 and 1940, well before humans began to burn the enormous quantities of hydrocarbons they do today. Then they dropped between 1940 and 1975, when the use of oil and coal increased, he said.
Singer believes that other factors -- like variations of solar winds and terrestrial magnetic field that impact cloud formations and the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface, and thus determining the temperature -- are much more influential than human-generated greenhouse gas emissions.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
__________________
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
Conrad, I'm all about that kind of voice being heard. There are intelligent people with contradictory evidence and if we're going to elevate the alarmists, we need to elevate people like this.
That said, if this ever becomes the prevailing science of the day, I hope people still realize the great need for eliminating car emissions. They're still a pox on us all with bad air.
Conrad, I'm all about that kind of voice being heard. There are intelligent people with contradictory evidence and if we're going to elevate the alarmists, we need to elevate people like this.
That said, if this ever becomes the prevailing science of the day, I hope people still realize the great need for eliminating car emissions. They're still a pox on us all with bad air.
Just build my trains, dagnabbit!
Exactly. The things that could ease global warming should be done REGARDLESS of anyone's point of view on the level of human involvement.
__________________
We live in a world which is full of misery and ignorance, and the plain duty of each and all of us is to try to make the little corner he can influence somewhat less miserable and somewhat less ignorant than it was before he entered it.
Intelligent choices can be green just because they are, no need to panic though, no need to do anything out of fear, just make wise choices.
__________________
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
What you call 'alarmist' is merely a reaction to the unwillingness of the Bush administration to listen to even the slightest degree. When somebody ignores you the natural human reaction is to ratchet up the volume.
Exactly. The things that could ease global warming should be done REGARDLESS of anyone's point of view on the level of human involvement.
Yep. My concern has always been that trying to force policy change for social engineering is not a good thing. Get the science right, everyone agrees that pollution is a bad thing and needs to be stopped.
That's why I constantly rail on th esituations in China and India, I believe Global Warming is actually ALLOWING them to pollute without an end in sight. It's very easy for their leaders to turn it into a political agenda, we're a growing nation the other industrialized nations pollute more than we do and have been for ages why should we have to stop our growth when they didn't stop theirs? It's a political agenda they're simply using the Warming movement to support it.
US won't ratify Kyoto because it exempts China and India, China and India won't self regulate because they're not the ones who started global warming so why should they slow their growth because of it.
The warming debate is getting in the way of the actual problem which is their pollution of their countries.
We're going to hear all about this when China hosts the Olympics.
Linear Mode
