Global Warming on Free Republic here, here and here
Posted on 08/25/2016 9:58:49 AM PDT by plain talk
Although climate change is thought of as simply a political football, it has been a heated topic among meteorologists for years. I, for one, have changed my conclusion over time on whether humans are responsible for the increased heat content of the Earth.
I write this article not to change your mind about global warming; I simply want to show you why I changed mine. Early in my scientific studies at Nebraska, most believed that humans could never pollute this massive globe enough to make a measurable difference. As a student, I learned to never exclude any possibility until ultimately that possibility is proven false. It was called skepticism, not denial, and skepticism is a key foundation of the scientific process. In the '80s and '90s there seemed to be many other potential causes of climate change, not only humans. Volcanoes, solar fluctuations, city heat-islands, concrete production and yes, even the cattle population. The list went on and on and seemed endless. I wondered if all these potential causes were given adequate consideration?
2010 was a turning point for me. That year was the hottest year on record, even though there was a La Niña present, a process that should have cooled the planet.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Hillary taking “green” transportation instead of private jets everywhere might be a good place to start...
We’re doomed. Pass the coal, please.
First, it's not becoming hotter. It was (natural variation in solar energy is most likely culprit), but now things have leveled off.
If there was a brief warming stint, then (after a lag time due to water's resistance to temp changes) warmer water will release CO2, as cooler water holds more CO2 than warmer water.
Hence, CO2 levels nudge over 400 ppm (although I would like to see lots of reproductions of the measurements with several independently calibrated CO2 measuring instruments, sited in concordance with all appropriate protocols.)
And with all this alleged "hot" climate, how come the antarctic ice cap is growing?
And, how come the Maldives (lowest s l of any country) are still nicely above water?
All you need to know about CNN is that there was no way for people to comment on the article. ‘nough said!
What disasters is he talking about? Just today I read in the weather channel an article bemoaning that Florida has not had a hurricane for so many YEARS! Last time I checked, all the Global Warmist projections were that there was going to be way more hurricane and that they were going to be more intense.
Well, if they killed off Humanity, Gorillas would just morph into Humans like they did before.
At least according to Atheist Liberals.
You got it. This guy is a hack that already believes in AGW.
The CNN fellow left off the most important potential cause of climate change, the Sun.
Looks to me he is using an unscientific approach to justify his opinion.
There is no evidence that man is affecting climate change. None.
Political Science
Published NWFDN Feb 22, 2007
Sadly political science has trumped the analytical science of global warming. Government funded scientists, environmentalists, Congress, and the mainstream media have all decreed manmade global warming a fact. However scientific observations and models don’t support their conclusions.
Ice core and coral reef samples show the earth has cycled from glacial to interglacial warm periods for millions of years, without mankind’s intervention. Water vapor constitutes 95% of all greenhouse gasses, but manmade CO2 constituting 0.001% of our atmosphere, is designated the global warming driver. Yet, observations show that global warming usually precedes rather than follows CO2 increases.
What then causes these cycles, if not man? A combination of uncontrollable external factors, such as periodic changes in the sun’s radiation, eccentricities in the Earth’s orbit from near circular to elliptical, and changes in the tilt and precession of Earth’s axis.
Even the IPCC’s “Climate Change 2007 Summary for Policymakers”, released before the actual report was completed, admits, “ice core data indicate the average polar temperatures (125,000 years ago) were 3 to 50C higher than present because of differences in the Earth’s orbit.” The report also predicts temperature and sea level rises in the next 100 years of 3.2o F and 7 –23 inches, far below previous estimates.
Phony hockey stick graphs emphasizing recent abnormal global temperature rises by deleting medieval warming and mini ice ages and computer climate models failing to predict observed global temperatures and sea level rises when back tested, only politicize and detract from legitimate analytical climate change science.
”… the increased heat content of the Earth.” ???
Where is the scientific proof of this?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
He stuck a rectal thermometer up the earth’s a$$ - (Washington D.C.)
Global Warming on Free Republic here, here and here
They’re putting stupid juice in the water, evidently. Their desperation in trying last ditch efforts to get people to buy their BS, are somewhere between cute and pathetic.
EARTHTARD....
B U M P
LOL
That's the problem with "narrowly educated specialists."
Had you embraced history, as well as "science" you might have learned that similar extreme warming periods have occurred numerous time in recorded history before there were enough humans to explain the facile "correlation."
The same applies to extreme cooling, which really throws a monkey wrench into your "science."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.