Global warming may not be caused entirely by us after all.
of course not, no such thing as global warming
Did you read the whole article bubbasteve?
[quote]“His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion,” said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England’s Oxford University.
“And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report.” (Related: “Global Warming ‘Very Likely’ Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say” [February 2, 2007].) [/quote]
[quote]Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov’s theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet’s surface.
But “without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice,” said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.[/quote]
Anyway, I’m not going to quote the whole article but evidence for his theory seems doesn’t seem to convince a majority of people in the field.
You guys really need to learn some basic science skills before you do your links.
If you’re going to disagree with scientific consensus, then you need to do with using science, not voodoo or conspiracy theories. What you don’t seem to get is that science is a process, not a religion that you can “believe” or “not believe” in. You put out a hypothesis, then you can test for it, and it can predict things. If it doesn’t pan out, then it’s not accepted. The sun causing global warming thing is a perfect example – looking at the data contradicts the theory, plain and simple.
[quote]The idea is that variations in solar activity affect cosmic ray intensity.
But Lancaster University scientists found there has been no significant link between them in the last 20 years.
Presenting their findings in the Institute of Physics journal, Environmental Research Letters, the UK team explain that they used three different ways to search for a correlation, and found virtually none.
This is the latest piece of evidence which at the very least puts the cosmic ray theory, developed by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark at the Danish National Space Center (DNSC), under very heavy pressure.[/quote]
Not only does correlation not equal causation, but there isn’t even any correlation here, just speculation.
Its like this global warming thing dose not explain 1934.
he 1934 Dustbowl displaced millions of people, caused countless farms to go bankrupt, created a wave of unemployment in a country already gripped by economic depression.
Was this the sinister head of Globel warming… NOPE the dust storm was only a series of weather patterns and human practices, which set the stage for that final tragic event.
Weather Patterns change ask the old timers about snow they will tell ya the winters were longer and the yearly snow fall was larger.
look over the last 10 years the weather in Canada has changed, ice storms and the Atlantic east coast getting hit with record amounts of snow,this is an effect of El NiÃ±o and his little sister La Nina who have helped in the change in weather.
and yes man plays a role in this, but weather patters change thats a fact.
[quote]Here is some far better advice: turn off Brokaw or Jennings or whomever, cancel your Sierra Club and Greenpeace memberships, and take a deep breath. Odd weather is as certain as death and taxes, but we’re better equipped to deal with it today than at any time in history.
(The author is a Policy Research Associate with the Science and Environmental Policy Project)
Interesting article about global warming published by NASA last year.
wiki: Climate is the average and variations of weather in a region over long periods of time.
Doesn’t explain 2008 or 1957 either.
Are the ice caps growing or shrinking?
Are the bugs being killed by the cold (normal over the long term) or NOT killed by the cold?
Are the salmon moving away cuz the water’s too warm?
Are you going to believe that 6 billion humans, 1 billion vehicles and the destruction of over half the rainforest is going to have ZERO effect on the environment? Then you too can be an Enviro-Zundel.
the surface of this planet has changed many times over the last 100 thousand years it has seen ocean levels higher then they are now,and also lower, the planet has been under ice more then just once. the magnetic poles have shifted on more then one occasion, the earth has also tilted more or less.
Species of plant’s and animals have diapered way before humans entered on too the scene.
and yes humans have helped it along but to blame humans on this when in fact Nature has been doing the same thing over and over since the beginning of time is stupid and pointless.
Awareness to the environment is what we need to do, stop dumping sewage and garbage into water ways, Stop the striping of the amazon rain forest for cow pastures. look at new technology for our power consumption. blaa blaa
Why is it that when people deviate from the “prescribed teachings” we are persecuted and put down?
Is it not possible that you think in any other way than what you have been taught. Is it not possible that MAYBE just maybe, there are different, and right, teachings out there?
Nope, like always in this forum, we all have to conform to a certian belief.
even if there is a better belief out there.
Come to think of it, This is almost like some form of religion isn’t it?
It’s the "if you don’t think my way you’re wrong and a quack and I want nothing to do with you"
Subscribe to the mainstream or die, because to deviate from the norm is proof-positive of stupidity.
It is complete proof of brainwashing, the fact that people NEVER NEVER NEVER want to deviate from what the mainstream has to say.
“no we must not question, we must believe. We must!” Even if there is proof, solid proof, that the mainstream is lacking knowledge.
Why not seek out new avenues? Why doesn’t anyone question any of this? Why do we all just “believe” in something?
Why can’t we have a mind of our own?
HERE, HERE good for you bubbasteve735
So if people want to think rationally instead of using voodoo and faulty logic, they’re automatically neo-con shills?
That’s another typical fault in logic: the ad hominem. Insult your opponent rather than take on their logic.
[quote]Nope, like always in this forum, we all have to conform to a certian belief.
even if there is a better belief out there.[/quote]
You don’t see how this is exactly the problem? You have one group of people talking about beliefs and another group of people talking about a scientific method and process.
You “believe” something and “don’t believe” something else. This isn’t about belief, it’s about taking a hypothesis and testing it.
If I say to you that I believe that the sky is purple and not blue, that’s what I believe, and sure most people would think that they can prove that the sky is blue, but my belief is that it is purple. What do you say to that? You know what I would say? I’d say prove it.
Sad that you think logic and rational thought are “religion” and belief and non-belief aren’t.
You can. You can “believe” anything you’d like.
But think about the example I used previously: I also “believe” that the Earth is flat.
You people who think the Earth is round are sheeple and have been brainwashed. Learn to think for yourselves! The Earth is flat! Look out the window! It’s not round at all.
What does this have to do with 9/11?
The hypothesis was that solar activity was causing global warming. Great, we have a hypothesis to test. Here’s how we test it – we look at times when there was increased solar activity, and if there were increased cloud formation or climate change during those periods of solar activity, then the hypothesis has legs.
Unfortunately, the data is clear – in times of decreased solar activity, there wasn’t any correlation with climate change. So the hypothesis is wrong.
Now you want to drag 9/11 conspiracy theories into that, that’s a reflection of your belief system, not a reflection of the scientific method or logic.
So you’re basically going to put your fingers in your ears and say “lalalalalala” over and over again?
That’s a good rational way of addressing logic for sure.
You’re taking this the wrong way, you shouldn’t take it personally. I just don’t think that there should be “opinions” and “beliefs” for a testable scientific hypothesis.
Either the world is flat or the world is round. There can’t be both, there’s no room for opinion or belief.
Bubbasteve, it’s not about belief. It’s about evidence. Science is all about trying new avenues as you suggest but is has a double check system that basically says: if you say something, you must be able to provide evidence so others can verify what you say. It’s not perfect but, in my opinion, it’s better than some beliefs about how nature works.
Here’s an example using quotes from Astro:
The planet has been under ice. Do you mean the whole planet? The last warm period before this one was 125 000 y ago. This was followed by the last ice age where ice covered about one third of the land. Obvioulsy you were right about the rising and lowering of sea level but your affirmation about the planet is erroneous. http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthglacier.html
Again, wrong information. The geomagnetic reversals happen in a somewhat random frequency, but on average it has reversed 4-5 times per millions years which makes your figure impossible.
What do you mean by tilt? Do you mean the precession movement with a cycle of about 26 000 years ( that’s why astrology is hogwash!) , the nutation movement with a much shorter cycle or the actual axial tilt with a cycle of about 41 000 years? If it’s the last one your talking about, it seems that the effect should be a cooling not a warming (read the linked article to see why).
So you see Bubbasteve, one must provide evidence for what they say. That’s the way that science works and again, prove to me that there’s a better system. So when the general consensus of scientists agree that global warming is accelerated by human activity, I’m thinking that they double checked their information before they came into agreement and for that reason, I put more weight on that opinion than on some others who put out theories but have a hard time with providing evidence.
excuse me My hand is up Iâ€™m sitting in the back Iâ€™m sorry I was not more precise with my words but u interpret them wrong. When I said about the 100 thousand years it was for the ice age. As for the all other stuff I did not mention time. Can I get a hall pass to leave your room?
I also prefer a rational, logical approach to interpreting natural phenomena. I think that the scientific evidence is quite clear that global warming is real and correlated to human activity.
I think the “flat Earth theory” is very apropos to the global warming debate.
Because 500 years ago, the scientific consensus was that the Earth was round. A majority of scientists (well, all the rational ones, anyway) believed that the Earth was round. They had thought so for a long time, and used the theory to explain certain phenomenon and predict others (think about ships and horizon, etc).
The problem was, that for your average Joe, the Earth was flat. And that was all there was to it. You couldn’t convince people, because they could just look out the window and see that the Earth was flat. You could talk about scientific consensus all you wanted, people just didn’t accept it.
It’s actually a pretty popular (and incorrect) myth that, as the song goes, Christopher Columbus proved the world was round. It had been proven round long before him – people just didn’t accept it.
see I understand man has played a role with the environment and how messed up it is, Like others have said, all you need is look around, our foot print on the environment is big no doubt about it, but its also a small factor in the effects of global warming.
there is other factors beside man. but like the quote I used before. I’m not going to go crazy thinking the end is near. We are better equipped to deal with it today than at any time in history, but Odd weather patterns will persist.
I’m sure we are going to witness more flooding on the Skeena like no other time in the last few hundred years. is that due to global warming? or more snow and rain in the mountains? there was still 5 feet of snow pack surrounding Smithers last summer that didn’t melt.
If there is Global warming well it sure is not around these parts.
You see how that’s like saying “if the Earth is round, it certainly isn’t around these parts!” Well, maybe in BC, but the analogy would work on the Prairies!
Damn you BC mountains for making my analogy a dumb one.