Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Trillions of dollars are being spent world wide on a theroy that is in doubt. Why are we wasting all this money. World hunger and diseases should be our main focus.
CO2 cannot account for the recent temperature changes we have had in the past. The Roman warming, the medieval warming , the Holocene maximums and five other warmings we have had in the past 100,000 years. We must first separate the natural causes of warming then determine what warming man has caused. 90 percent of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is from decomposisition of plants and animals. The oceans certainly contribute a large amount of CO2. Change in these factors need to be considered before we look at CO2 produced by man. Definitely before we spend any more money for a problem that may not even exist.
No, it only "proved" that deniers cannot do science. No one of any note takes that seriously at all today.Climategate proved that there is no science behind the agw theroy. It's politics and green religion. Also climate gate proved colution and corrupted science.
The 1500 year cycle of warming clearly shows that there were numerous occasions when it was warmer globally then modern times. The medival warming, the Roman warm period, the two Holocene maximums and five other warmings we have had during the last 100,000 years. This is just another warming like the previous ones and natural in occurance.
The proxy data shows the world wide warmings we have had in the past this is undisputed.
All the previous warmings we have had were nature caused. A combination of the malankovich cycles is the best explanation of the 1,500 year warmings we have had. Otherwise what else is the cause of the exact cycle time of the warmings we have had, all nine of them.
Agw theroy needs to be challenged especially the math behind the greenhouse effect.
Agw theroy needs to be challenged especially the math behind the greenhouse effect.
This is a really poor hill to die on. The physics (math is only the handmaiden of science) of the greenhouse effect is *very* well established and not questioned by those with even a modicum of knowledge. If it weren't for the greenhouse effect this planet would be a frozen wasteland.
Is this from the satellite data?The temperature in the thirties and forties was warmer than now.
The frozen wasteland you are referring to is from water vapor not CO2.
That it isn't true? That's the biggest problem.The greenhouse effect is mostly from water vapor.
Ninety percent of the CO2 produced in the atmosphere is from nature.
In the thirties and forties when we did not produce much CO2 , temperatures were as high as today.
There is a pause in the rising temperature we are experiencing of two and a half degrees. This has been the case for sixteen years. Then NASA and NOAA changed their data and poof goes the pause. The US Congress has asked both agencies to release thier data and they have refused to do it.
The climate models are way off they are not reflecting the actual temperatures that are observed. Other than the large El Nino year in 1998, the temperature is very stable. Only two and a half degrees above normal.
So what is all the fuss about ?
The statement that plant and animal decay cause ninety percent of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere per year , is not false. Type in your search engine: the mathmatics of leaf decay MIT News.
pages.science-skeptical.de this site is dedicated to showing the global extent of CO2 levels and temperatures during the medieval warm period.
The mathmatics of leaf decay MIT News
You assume that the statement, "plant and animal decay is responsible for ninety percent of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere per year" was discredited, it was not.
Type in your search engine- the mathmatics of leaf decay MIT News.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?