Global warming debunked: NASA report verifies CO2 actually cools atmosphere (how much, compared)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I get the impression that the article is saying, that when there is "more" CO2 in the atmosphere, then less solar radiation is captured (since more is reflected away before it can warm the land and the air). And when there is "less" CO2, less solar radiation is reflected away, and so more reaches the lower atmosphere (and the surface of the ground) and can warm things up.
I do wonder: In all cases, "some" solar radiation does warm up the air. Does it warm the air when it hits the air itself? Or does it warm the air by first hitting the surface of the ground, warming up the ground, and then the ground warms the air?
Probably some of both. But what is the dominant effect? Warming the air by direct radiation? Or warming indirectly by warming the ground, and then the ground warms the air?
That doesn't have anything to do with what global warming has been about.
The result was an overall cooling effect that completely contradicts claims made by NASA's own climatology division that greenhouse gases are a cause of global warming...
The nutty conclusion also contradicts the scientific argument that is being nuttily presented by the naturally nut-case news...
"A surge of infrared radiation from nitric oxide molecules on March 8-10, 2012, signals the biggest upper-atmospheric heating event in seven years."
But, perhaps, the nutty-natural news agency also recommends building green houses to cool down otherwise tropical vegetation.
I never really understood the right wing position on this. Why base your entire ideology on a few wingnuts pulling numbers out of their ass in a desperate attempt to overthrow the other 99.9% of the scientific establishment, when you could just as easily say "yeah global warming happens, and we're causing it, but the free market is the best way to fix the problem".
I mean, that seems like a much more respectable position. I don't see why you'd have to be anti-science. The fact that they're not even trying that angle seems to suggest a concession on their part that capitalism is powerless to deal with disasters that are caused by its tendency towards unsustainable rates of economic growth.
Meanwhile, for anyone interested in what NASA really believes, here's the link to their climate change / global warming website - yes, they have a separate website dealing with climate change. If you actually care so much about what NASA thinks and don't have blinders on that allow you only to see evidence which seems to contradict the common theory of Global Warming, then spend some time browsing the website and reading the articles. Weigh the evidence for yourself - don't let some guy on a message board or talk radio do it for you.
Besides the problem of Global Warming, I notice that none of the skeptics want to address other aspects of climate change like deforestation, the loss of species, colony collapse disorder, pollution of fresh water sources by industry, the destruction of coral reefs worldwide, the destruction of the ocean's biomass (less fish and oceanic organisms), damming of rivers for hydroelectric power, pollution of groundwater from fracking and agribusiness, America's rapidly depleting freshwater reserves, especially in the Southwest, which could turn all of California into a desert in 20 years and lead to the depopulation of Los Angeles, Las Vegas, San Diego, Phoenix, etc., and put an end to agriculture in the Central Valley of California, rising oceans, rising of oceanic acidity, air pollution leading to cancer and lung diseases, industrial pollution leading to cancer and other diseases in humans, giant oil spills in the world's seas, and I could keep going and going.
If you don't believe in the commonly accepted theory of Global Warming, fine. That's your problem. But what about all the things I listed above and the other human causes behind climate change? What do you have to say about them? I suppose as long as the economy keeps chugging along, none of it matter, right? Well I wonder how that economy is going to fare when all our natural resources are used up, our forests are gone, our oceans are devoid of life, our water is scarce and undrinkable, our crops are withering, our air is toxic, and our coastal cities are swamped. Didn't you ever stop to think that there is plenty of man made climate change that is having a very negative effect on our planet and eventually will have a very negative effect on even the wealthiest of us? Or I suppose global deforestation is a naturally occurring event, and the loss of species worldwide has nothing to do with habitat loss and poaching. One day you'll all have to wake up to the truth, but by then I fear it will be too late. In the mean time, try and remember that even if Global Warming is some inexplicable hoax concocted by lefties for some inexplicable reason, there are plenty of other negative pressures being caused by humans on our planet that affects us all profoundly and cannot be dismissed as not real.
They've already started to switch over to the "Climate Change" argument instead of the "Global Warming" argument. The handwriting has been on the wall for years.
The latest Bilderberg conference will discuss, among many agendas to destroy the world, "Global Cooling". So get ready to start seeing the carbon tax push again to prevent the Global Cooling.
I never really understood the right wing position on this. Why base your entire ideology on a few wingnuts pulling numbers out of their ass in a desperate attempt to overthrow the other 99.9% of the scientific establishment, when you could just as easily say "yeah global warming happens, and we're causing it, but the free market is the best way to fix the problem".
I mean, that seems like a much more respectable position. I don't see why you'd have to be anti-science. The fact that they're not even trying that angle seems to suggest a concession on their part that capitalism is powerless to deal with disasters that are caused by its tendency towards unsustainable rates of economic growth.
Humans are not causing the earth to warm. The one tenth of one percent emissions that humans emit is nothing. Therefore, there is no problem "to fix". I am not anti-science but pro facts. Give me facts that humans are causing the warming, not theory.
The earth heats and cools periodically. Fact.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
