the polar bear climate change photo

Started Mar 24, 2007 | Discussions thread
Terry Sessford Senior Member • Posts: 2,497
Re: An Al Gore Disciple is in the house!

To quote Dr John Gribbin of the University of Sussex in the UK:

"[claims of] a decline in global mean temperatures from 1940 to 1970, [are] actually based (inaccurately) on northern hemisphere data alone. The global temperature figures stayed more or less steady over this time.

There is a sound scientific reason for this. During 'the post-war economic boom' industrial pollution in the atmosphere acted as a sun-shield, preventing some heat from the sun reaching he ground, and counteracted global warming. Since the air has got cleaner, warming has resumed with full force. Both the pollution and the subsequent clearing have been measured."

All the arguments that I have seen which attempt to debunk man-made global warming have been based on out-of-date or erroneous data or just simply bad science. Whilst it is not true to say that ALL scientists agree that man-mage global warming is happening, it IS true that the great majority do agree and that it is only a very small (but vocal) minority who disagree.

Terry.

Ryan McDaniel wrote:

Kenstrain wrote:

Recently I've noticed the apparent anti-correlation (your FACT
quoted above) being used as an argument against CO2 related
warming. There is also the argument that at earlier times there
was no causal correlation (indeed that the CO2 concentration is
determined by prior temperature history rather than the other way
round).

If that apparent anti-correlation is not causal it probably should
not be used in an anti-global warming science argument, even if its
political utility is clear (for example for the fossil fuel
industry:" look, we do no harm"). If it is causal the implication
is that human activity is affecting the climate (but not in the way
predicted by the naiive climate models).

I wonder if that could be partially due to cloud formation related
to soot and other pollution, as well as non-anthropogenic changes
(or some other anthropogenic cause).

I don't follow the literature on this though, nor do I have an
opinion on whether there is causality.

You have some valid points. I use that fact to illustrate that
climate science is not an open and shut case, but that we still
have a lot to learn before we can rely on computer simulations. It
shouldn't be misconstrued as any kind of absolute proof. I don't
want to be guilty of the rigid, dogmatic attitude of people who run
around saying ALL scientists are in agreement and it's absolutely
proven.

People like Chato send me into a rant with their "ALL scientists
agree; only cranks don't" nonsense. There's plenty of evidence to
lead one to a different conclusion than the worst-case-imaginable
scenarios pushed by the Al Gore crowd.

 Terry Sessford's gear list:Terry Sessford's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Olympus E-M5 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +4 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
igb
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow