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 don't believe them because a bunch of non-climatologists saying something does not even come close to constituting a scientific rebuttal. Why does the fact 25 people say something hold more weight than the vast amounts of research done by thousands over decades?
Would it be a waste of time to point out that "they're NASA scientists and I believe them" is a fallacious appeal to authority? They can say what they like, the research still shows otherwise.
The entire AGW argument isn't based on the work of thousands. There are a handfull of scientists who have advanced the theory. Even the most recent IPCC report included no new science but rehashed data from 2010. Go look it up.
There are about 50 top climate scientists worldwide. Mann, Hansen, and a others are the primary source of the claim that links humans to warming.
Interesting, if one looks at the degrees of the top climate scientists they are identical to the degrees in many respects to the NASA scientists who spoke out: physics, thermal dynamics, geophysics, math, and similar.
A greenhouse gas (sometimes abbreviated GHG) is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect.[1] The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Greenhouse gases greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; without them, Earth's surface would average about 33 °C colder, which is about 59 °F below the present average of 14 °C (57 °F).
Given climate history since the end of the Little Ice Age, it should be obvious that the effect of CO2 is greatly overstated by the alarmists.
Skepticism is more scientific than blind belief, sientifically speaking.
Agreed. But the empirical evidence of change is becoming overwhelming. Even these crazy patterns. It was the warmest summer ever in my home town in Oregon. Looks like it was not an isolated pattern.
Now, this could all be weather, but the coin flips are starting to look more and more lopsided. I am of the mind that the climate scientists are right. Arctic warming is leading to a slower moving, more variable jet stream, and most extremes at midlatitudes.
They were Phd's with the same degrees and credentials as the leading climate scientists.
You're going to need to post a link, because we're evidently not talking about the same thing.
But I'm pretty sure your argument is 'well, these people are educated in unrelated subjects, but they are smart so they must know everything about everything'.
Yup, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas unless mixed with others.
Otherwise, we should have heated up a lot more than we have. But since it hasn't warmed in over 18 years and CO2 is at its highest makes one think twice about it.
As a chemist, I can tell you with 100% certainty that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Whether it's mixed with other gasses is irrelevant.
If you had been following the thread, you would realize that people have already concluded that being qualified to make such a proclamation only means that people would be foolish to believe you.
The warming Pacific Ocean near Alaska which is also causing the 'Arctic Paradox'.
If people actually read about these things instead of just believing whatever helps them make the most obnoxious remarks about AGW, then maybe more people would know this.
Since it is so cold around the US, should we increase CO2 emissions to "combat the cold"?
Therein lies the problem with the global warming hoax. The global warming enthusiasts promoted a false premise of "man made global warming" in order to transition to alternative fuels and to stifle industrialization.
If we accept the notion of CO2 as being an agent that truely warms the planet, then of course increasing CO2 production should be able to be used to combat cooling.
That is the problem with lies and hoaxes- sometimes they can bite you in the as* and subvert your initial objective.
You should probably have at least a basic understanding of science before starting a thread about something you don't understand.
Just sayin'….
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.
