Posted on 02/25/2005 12:02:42 AM PST by Dr. Marten
The science behind the global warming theory is really weak as I've stated numerous times on FR. It's all based on inadequately research assumptions that are used by elaborate computer models which crank out essentially meaningless forecasts. The forecasts are meaningless because they are based on soft, unproven assumptions. One factor the forecasters always seem to forget is that the rate of any chemical reaction increases with concentration of the reactants. Therefore, the more CO2 we add to he atmopshere, the faster plants consume CO2 in photosynthesis reactions and the faster the CO2 reacts with compounds in the soil.
The effect of C02 on temperature is also highly debateable. Just a few months ago, I heard about new research indicating that CO2 helps to radiate heat AWAY from the earth in the upper atmosphere. The global warming theory is just classic bureaucratic group think--people in government supported organizations believe in global warming because this expressed belief is good for their careers and their department budgets. I've never seen a better example of mass stupidity by smart people than the "consensus" that global warming is actually happening and it is caused by increasing CO2 levels.
I don't believe in a 2 to 3 million or older earth but this guy makes sense about global climate change. Can't say the same for those who claim we are heading into doomsday from global warming.
Environment
PERSPECTIVES: RISING CO2 LEVELS - THE REASON WHY ~~The earth has a cycle
And this web site:
bump good post. Thanks for the info.
**********************************************
Precession of the Equinoxes
|
Not by Fire but by Ice THE NEXT ICE AGE - NOW! |
Pacemaker of the Ice Ages |
 |
|||
| Changes in global ice volume during the last 500,000 years, as determined from CLIMAP isotopic measurements. Chart is from John and Katherine Imbrie's book Ice Ages: Solving the Mystery, by permission of Enslow Publishers. Data from J. D. Hays et al., 1976, by permission J. D. Hays. |
|
Mother Nature has her own agenda and is not in a position to have to kowtow to human intervention! ; )
1940 to 1977: Cooling period. The temperatures are cooler than currently. Mountain glaciers recede, and some begin to advance. The tabloids inform us of widespread catastrophes due to the "New Glaciation". The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.
One of those "tabloids" was the Weekly Reader. They had a picture with vast tundras and two domed cities miles apart.
Scared the Hell out of me when I saw that. Scared me so much that when this "Global Warming(TM)" fad started, it caused me to question everything I was ever taught in the public school system.
I don't believe a word of anything unless I can prove it too myself. If I can't prove, for example, Big Bang, then it isn't important enough to worry about.
Seems to me, unless you are a scientist, you have to take almost any thing an alleged expert says on faith.
I simply don't have that much faith.
>>CO2 helps to radiate heat AWAY from the earth in the upper atmosphere.
Actually, the original scientist who sounded the global warming alarm....later retracted when he calculated that the reflectance of CO2 couteracts warming.
Believe it or not, it does not make any difference. This planet is 4,000,000,000+ years old. Your beliefs will not change that FACT.
bttt
How old do you thing earth is?
Hahahaha! Its warm in the day, cold at night. I don't see any warming!
"The Polar Ice Caps are Melting" story comes out every few months. Some expedition goes out and measures the sea ice at some location they already have data from 5, 10 years ago for example and surprise, they announce with much fanfare, that the ice is 20% thinner than it was
(Sometimes these guys are just kooks by the way. One highly noted study comes from a zoology professor who was working on a cruise ship lol.)
Anyway, here is a link to the latest animation from NASA's ICESat satellite of the North Pole sea ice (the best you will see) 1979 to 2004.
The polar ice moves back and forth so much and moves so much with the seasons that only a long-long-long-term satellite study with radar measurements can tell you anything at all.
http://www.nasa.gov/mpeg/103496main_sea_ice2004_320x240.mpeg
I dunno...call me crazy...but I'm thinking the temperature on our planet has an awful lot to do with that thing in the sky that we call the Sun! The way these people talk, you'd think that the Sun was a constant.
If these people really wanted to isolate CO2 as the culprit, they'd first need to do an energy balance on the whole, and weed out any variability from bigger contributors like the Sun. Draw a box around the Earth and find out how much of the Sun's energy hits the earth in a given year. It ain't gonna be constant: the sun experiences cycles; some years it burns hotter than others. You've got to eliminate this variability from the equation before we can talk about such minor causes as fossil fuels.
You have a better estimate and if so, how did you arrive at it?
This planet is 4,000,000,000+ years old. Your beliefs will not change that FACT.
Facts are NORMALLY established by observation. What was the name of the individual who you would quote lived 4 billion years ago? And by the way, your beliefs WILL establish that FACT?
If you can find a link to that retraction you'll be a hero around here.
Somewhere in the vicinity of 8 to 10 thousand years old.
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.