|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 06:33 AM EDT |
I have been involved in visualizing data from
actual climate prediction models, designed and
run by people I trust to be balanced, impartial
and scientifically honest. They are not part of
the high profile brouhaha in the public debate.
They are just hard working experts in the simulation
and prediction of weather and climate.
I can tell you for sure that there is very strong
scientific evidence supporting the claim that the
carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere has a
strong influence on the overall heat retention
of our planet, and that we have reached levels
where it definitely starts having a real impact.
Whether that effect is going to bring about change
or not is not for me to judge, but I find it terribly
disturbing that the debate is being suppressed by a
bunch of people saying "don't worry, it's going to be OK"
without any explanation of *why* it is going to be OK.
Carbon dioxide has an effect. I want to know if the
global warming critics have found a counter-effect,
something in the biological or geological system of
the Earth that somehow mitigates or cancels out the
effects of carbon dioxide. In that case, it should
be incorporated in the simulation models instead
of relied on as some hidden last minute save that
is surely bound to somehow kick in and let us continue
on the seemingly destructive path we are treading.
So far, I have seen a lot of political opposition, but
very little scientific opposition to global warming,
and to me, that is a clear warning that maybe not
everything is right with the debate.
The human race has been waging wars because of
stupidity and deliberate ignorance for as long as
we have existed, but destroying our planet for the
same bad reasons is a different matter, and I find
it very disturbing that the debate about this
absolutely life-essential subject is heavily
influenced by politics, misinformation and bad
science.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Bernard on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 06:36 AM EDT |
Learn the physics behind it.
CO2 lasers (how they are possible). Emissions inventories.
Longwave radiation measurement (both incoming and outgoing).
Paleoclimatology.
Once you learn a little about these topics, the global
warming discussion becomes a whole lot more comprehensible,
and it's easy to see when someone's speaking to scientific
'truth' (i.e. hypotheses supported by known facts), and just
as easy to see when someone's full of it, and trying to pull
the wool over your eyes.
I laughed out loud when I saw yet another Simple Experiment
that Disproves Global Warming a year or so back. The great
revelation was that the "CO2 in a transparent box heats up
when you shine a heatlamp on it" experiments fall over when
your box doesn't have a lid, and convection carries the heat
away. Well, duh!
But somehow, this was translated into "The greenhouse effect
doesn't exist!". Never mind that they failed to even
*consider* the question of just where convection would carry
the heat when you're talking about the entire atmosphere,
not just a small box...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Winter on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 07:12 AM EDT |
SCIENTISTS WARN
OF GLOBAL COINCIDENCE
Rising Temps, Oceans, and Greenhouse Gas Proof of Weird,
Unrelated Happenings
Polls show that Global Coincidence theory
has long been embraced by the general public, but a handful of scientists remain
skeptical. "I've seen their data, and I still wonder if perhaps there's not some
kind of cause-and-effect relationship that we should be addressing," said Dr.
Kathryn Burke of the Sierra Club. "I believe Global Coincidence may be one
possible scenario, but we need to do more studies, including some that point to
possible linkages between events, if they
exist."
Winter
---
Some say the sun rises in
the east, some say it rises in the west; the truth lies probably somewhere in
between. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
