New NASA Study Shows CO2 causes Cooling
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
cern is on the verge of releasing e a study on this subject.
here is the concluding paragraph.... of an interview...
http://notrickszone.com/2013/05/19/...ts-of-cloud-the-results-are-very-interesting/
Letâs assume that you are able to show that cosmic radiation indeed does contribute a lot to cloud formation. What would that mean?
I think that the experiments are important in two ways. Firstly, they would show that there is a natural source to climate change. And the other point is that it would change our understanding of anthropogenic climate change. We know quite a bit about greenhouse gases. What we know little about are aerosols. These are particles that come from industry floating in the atmosphere. They surely have a cooling effect. However, we have no idea just how great this effect is. It may be small, but it may be very big. Maybe it is even big enough to offset the additional CO2 in the atmosphere.. We donât know.
Continue reading at ORF.at.â
Image source: NASA, public domain image.
here is the concluding paragraph.... of an interview...
http://notrickszone.com/2013/05/19/...ts-of-cloud-the-results-are-very-interesting/
Letâs assume that you are able to show that cosmic radiation indeed does contribute a lot to cloud formation. What would that mean?
I think that the experiments are important in two ways. Firstly, they would show that there is a natural source to climate change. And the other point is that it would change our understanding of anthropogenic climate change. We know quite a bit about greenhouse gases. What we know little about are aerosols. These are particles that come from industry floating in the atmosphere. They surely have a cooling effect. However, we have no idea just how great this effect is. It may be small, but it may be very big. Maybe it is even big enough to offset the additional CO2 in the atmosphere.. We donât know.
Continue reading at ORF.at.â
Image source: NASA, public domain image.
That's right conspiracy guy. You like the science until you don't like what the science says. Unless it does say what you want to hear then it suddenly becomes -real science- with everyone and everything else a great big international UN conspiracy.
You?..... looking for the truth?.... my ass.
Yeah yeah whatever. The usual bullshit. Your 'science' is the kind that can prove the Earth is flat. Heard it all before.
A thread title to misconstrue what NASA does say about stuff which is already known.
Done to deny widely recognized scientific sources which conclusively say X, so you need to find those who assert Y or failing that, change and twist what X says.
What is known is, there's "a higher than a 90% probability human emissions of CO2 cause the observed increase in global warming."
"Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change." NASA
My objection is the making up of bullshit inferences and false innuendo, like the thread title encourages, which of course you swallow hook line and sinker and copy out like the total fool you are.
"Not here to worship what is known, but to question it." ....Exactly!!!
Whereas you just worship the opposite of what is known.
you are are a fricken kook. you just posted opinion... not science supported by data.
1. for instance... you have not shown there is warming outside natural variation using appropriate statistics.
--
2. You have not shown co2 forces temperatures... ever...
why? because the temperature data shows temperature leads co2.
what is know is that throughout the historical record co2 accumulation lags temperature increase and co2 disapation lags temperature decrease...
here is proof... there are dozens of articles linking to the data from the ice cores.
here is one with pretty charts for the simple minded trolls.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf
1. for instance... you have not shown there is warming outside natural variation using appropriate statistics.
--
2. You have not shown co2 forces temperatures... ever...
why? because the temperature data shows temperature leads co2.
what is know is that throughout the historical record co2 accumulation lags temperature increase and co2 disapation lags temperature decrease...
here is proof... there are dozens of articles linking to the data from the ice cores.
here is one with pretty charts for the simple minded trolls.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf
"If only you had a brain." Then you could understand the science, tin man.
For simpletons like yourself, this statement from this source should be sufficient. (hint: It's not Al Gore, it's someone who knows what he is talking about.)
<font color=blue size=3><b>âThe influence of mankind on climate is trivially true and numerically insignificant.â</b>
~Richard Lindzen, MIT Atmospheric Physicist
</font>
+1
+ 10000. Well said and on the money.
The fact is that CO2 levels have gone up 40% in the last 150 years due to man. CO2 is a greenhouse gas responsible for about15% of the earth's greenhouse effect. How could that NOT make temps go up? It's a very simple common sense thing......... that the fossil fuel industry doesn't want you to think about. The basics of the science is settled. 97% of the world's climatologists and all the world's science organizations are in agreement about it. The deniers just look foolish now.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/globalwarming.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes
http://www.skepticalscience.com/emp...ouse-effect.htm
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/globalwarming.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes
http://www.skepticalscience.com/emp...ouse-effect.htm
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus