The Forum > Article Comments > Hidden variables part of global warming issue > Comments
Hidden variables part of global warming issue : Comments
By Frederic Jueneman, published 21/11/2006The chemistry of global warming has been much ado about debate.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
- 4
-
- All
Posted by Perseus, Thursday, 23 November 2006 1:52:48 PM
| |
thank you Perseus. I am still ploughing my way through the 77 pages of responses to Christopher Monckton's "Sunday Telegraph" articles, they make fascinating reading.. recommended. On the influence of the Sun, it has an 11 year cycle, but then reverses its magnetic field each time, so you need to use a 22 year cycle not 11, writes one reader, Christopher M replies "satellite data..have so far not completed two full 10.6 year cycles. The solar minimum towards the end of next year will be particularly interesting..." UC Irvine researchers on Nov 21 state that levels of methane-an important greenhouse gas-have remained steady for the past seven years instead of rising, as many scientists assumed (there is that word again..)they would.
A final comment from another respondent (an Engineer) ..I suggest the following statement "It is an incontrovertible scientific fact that if carbon dioxide is 500ppm of the atmosphere the quantity of heat it can account for is 0.05%. This is based on simple proportion of mass (with Specific Heat and Temperature constant). This means that any temperature variation due to the presence of Carbon Dioxide is insignificant when compared to the multitude of other factors which influence the Earth's climate" As for "consensus", check out the 17,000 scientists who signed a petition against the "global warming" hysteria www.oism.org Richard42 Posted by richard42, Thursday, 23 November 2006 5:38:19 PM
| |
I've been debating climate change for thirty years. I'm used to every argument being countered by a differing view trawled up from within the scientific community. That is how science works. There is never complete agreement, and with an issue as complex as our planets ecosystem to expect that is silly. Governments have used that complexity to delay responding for all that time and, sadly, will continue to do so.
There is however now consensus within the scientific community though it has been a long time coming. That is not because it is now politically correct to jump on the global warming train but because the predictions made by scientists 30 or more years ago are proving correct and because research from so many disciplines point in the same direction. That is how science works... hypothesis, experiment, results, debate, consensus. We can now decide that perhaps the causes of those results may be more complex and that more study is required, but it would be foolish in the extreme to look for other causes simply because that would be more convenient when there is already a working hypothesis for what the Earth is experiencing. It behoves us to act on the information we have and respect the scientific process that has led to the current consensus on global warming. Posted by Bondo, Thursday, 23 November 2006 6:36:33 PM
| |
A study taking place in the Nederlands, on a well known glacier, on the movement and retreat of it, had to be abandoned due to the massive retreat of the glacier not ever seen its history.
Measuring equipment was now at the bottom of the river that had been created by this massive thaw. Posted by Suebdootwo, Thursday, 23 November 2006 11:24:01 PM
| |
So Bondo has a selective retention deficit in respect of the meaning of consensus and Subdootwo is yet to discover that the Netherlands doesn't even have mountains, let alone Glaciers.
In such company it hardly rates mentioning that Glaciers could actually be melting due to increased albedo or reflection of suns energy which produces increased daytime temperatures that melt the ice while night time temperatures are lower but, obviously, dont make the glaciers grow from the bottom. And increased albedo is evidence of global cooling as less of the suns energy is absorbed by the earth. Posted by Perseus, Saturday, 25 November 2006 10:40:56 PM
| |
Richard42 wrote:
As for "consensus", check out the 17,000 scientists who signed a petition against the "global warming" hysteria www.oism.org" Most of the OISM 'scientists' are actually MD's, DDS's, and DVM's (doctors, dentists and veterinarians)! The whole thing was debunked years ago... "The OISM petition also came under fire for being deceptively packaged: The petition was accompanied by an article purporting to debunk global warming that was formatted to look as though it had been published in the journal of the respected National Academy of Sciences. The resemblance was so close that the NAS issued a public statement that the OISM petition "does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." Theres more.. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine Richard42, i'm embarrassed for you regurgitating these eight year old lies, right when Lord Monkton has minted some nice fresh lies too. Stick to the Coal-ition song sheet man! Posted by Liam, Sunday, 26 November 2006 10:40:06 AM
|
More importantly, the article distorted the story. It turned a conference on the impact of solar radiation into yet another bit of green bollocks. The headline was taken from the line that some scientists at the conference were questioning the findings and the journalist then turned this questioning by a few of the people present and portrayed it as if the entire conference had major doubts about the role of solar forcing.
This is clearly not the case.
But it is standard sleazy stuff, same old gonzo green journalism, same old subsequent misquoting by people like yourself as if it were an established fact. Goebells would be proud of you. Shame on you. Do you have no respect for readers right to know the facts and make up their own minds?