Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Greenhouse theory smashed by biggest stone
Phys Org ^ | March 14, 2006 | Space & Earth Science

Posted on 03/14/2006 3:26:11 PM PST by grandpa jones

A new theory to explain global warming was revealed at a meeting at the University of Leicester (UK) and is being considered for publication in the journal "Science First Hand". The controversial theory has nothing to do with burning fossil fuels and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. According to Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the apparent rise in average global temperature recorded by scientists over the last hundred years or so could be due to atmospheric changes that are not connected to human emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of natural gas and oil. Shaidurov explained how changes in the amount of ice crystals at high altitude could damage the layer of thin, high altitude clouds found in the mesosphere that reduce the amount of warming solar radiation reaching the earth's surface

(Excerpt) Read more at physorg.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: co2; globalwarming; greenhouseeffect
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last
To: Decepticon

Yes....and like nearly all climatology articles, I can't actually find an experiment. Modeling doesn't count.


21 posted on 03/14/2006 5:36:31 PM PST by MarcusTulliusCicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MarcusTulliusCicero
Modeling doesn't count.

Really. And what are climate changes for global warming based on? The temperature as recorded in various cities for the last 100 years....? Or computer models? Or both?

22 posted on 03/14/2006 5:39:57 PM PST by Decepticon (The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day (NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Decepticon

That is why the evidence that global warming is actually occurring is at best sparse. The temperature records are inaccurate and of very short duration. Trying to extrapolate 150 years of wildly inaccurate data over a time span of 3 billion years or so would be like me viewing a Polaroid picture of you at 3 P.M. in 1960 (assuming you're that old, of course) and trying to predict with confidence what you'll be wearing a 7 P.M. on April 3rd, 2031. Computer models are useless since there are too many parameters that are quite simply guesses (and many parameters that aren't even included in the models). Guesses are nothing more than personal prejudice of the scientist designing the model.


23 posted on 03/14/2006 5:52:22 PM PST by MarcusTulliusCicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: grandpa jones
Even if this is a theory that has not yet been proven, we should do like the Environweenies do: start an immediate effort to stop all excessive emissions of water vapor. It is with this in mind that I give a Modest Proposal: since the left contributes the most to the world's excessive atmospheric hot water vapor with their non-stop whining about the environment, it is imperative that they all SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!
24 posted on 03/14/2006 5:57:38 PM PST by jonrick46
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarcusTulliusCicero
That is why the evidence that global warming is actually occurring is at best sparse.

We agree. I thought Shaidurov had an interesting premise, I don't know as much about Russian researchers as you do, but I'm still open for debate. I'm sure I come across as naive, but I don't believe many scientists and scholars know as much about global warming as they pretend, and grant money will always be a factor.

Regards.

25 posted on 03/14/2006 6:03:12 PM PST by Decepticon (The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day (NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ordinaryguy
Great, now we just need to compare Earth with the control group, to determine whether a correlation exists between global temperature and the Tunguska Event.

Aww, damn, man. Don't go bringing science into this global warming thing. ;-)

26 posted on 03/14/2006 6:05:59 PM PST by Hardastarboard (HEY - Billy Joe! You ARE an American Idiot!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Decepticon

Yes, grant money is always a factor. Also, you can't trust reporting by the media for three reasons. First, of course, is their bias...they believe warming is occurring and that man is the cause. Second, they are woefully incompetent when trying to either understand science or to relay the information in a way that is both accessible to the layperson but still accurate. Third, very often, when they report on a study, they have only read the abstract or summary of the article. What is in that abstract is often more forceful or unequivocal than what you would find in the paper's discussion.


27 posted on 03/14/2006 6:07:07 PM PST by MarcusTulliusCicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MarcusTulliusCicero

Well said.....perhaps I picked on the wrong "Academia"...LOL.


28 posted on 03/14/2006 6:14:33 PM PST by Decepticon (The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day (NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: grandpa jones

**Another favorite Lib Meme bites the dust.** Liberalism's errors never die. We will always hear from liberals that it is "settled science" that SUVs are causing global warming. Those who come up with science that disproves them will be known as "haters" and "right wing extremists."


29 posted on 03/15/2006 6:09:24 AM PST by Galveston Grl (Getting angry and abandoning power to the Democrats is not a choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: utexas2000
The source sounds sketchy. "Science First Hand"??? This journal doesn't have a web page, google search turns up nothing. Not likely to shake the foundation.

Here's the link to the original report University of Leicester, Technical Report No. MA-05-15. The author is with the Institute of Computational Modeling of Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, shidurov@icm.krasn.ru. Visited Leicester in April 2005.

30 posted on 03/31/2006 9:53:21 AM PST by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Decepticon

If you look at the dramatic inventions and true theories that Russians have put up over the last 100 years...without huge investments of money or technology...you have to admire their mental capacity. They are the first ones in space...and put up the first satellite. We can ridicule them as much as we want for both "firsts"...but face it...they did it. Had Kennedy not made the "man-on-the-moon" idea top priority of the US government...then the Russians would have been first there too.

This guy likely has the correct idea...but will major science publications give him a chance to explain?


31 posted on 03/31/2006 10:00:20 AM PST by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson